Preamble

The House met at Ten o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT 1949 (AMENDMENT) (No. 2) BILL

10.5 a.m.

Mr. Denis Coe (Middleton and Prest-wich): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require reference to be made on nomination and ballot papers at parliamentary and local elections to the political or other allegiances of candidates, and to make provision to avoid inaccurate use of such allegiances.
I believe that this amendment of our electoral law would be widely welcomed. It would provide a sensible way of assisting electors to identify the candidates of their choice and so avoid the confusion which often exists at the moment, especially where the list of candidates is extensive.
My attention to this problem was aroused when I lived in Cheshire and was asked to vote at a local election for six parish councillors out of a list of fifteen, and four rural district councillors out of a list of twelve. It so happened that I was a political activist in the area and, therefore, the candidate of my choice were my friends and colleagues, but I submit that for the ordinary elector to have to remember the names of up to ten candidates out of a total of 27 represents a prodigious feat of memory which he ought never to be asked to indulge in.
This problem was spotlighted for me then, and it has remained a problem for many years. The recent Greater London Council election brought it to the fore yet again. I suggest that as we move towards larger areas of local government the problem will become even more important. It is time that the House considered it. I know that the Speaker's Conference is considering the question of allowing the printing of the names of political parties on the ballot papers at Parliamentary elections. I do not know

what it will decide, but in any case there is no provision for the question to be considered from the point of view of local elections, where the need is even greater.
The matter is urgent. If we consider the Greater London Council election, we see some of the reasons for urgent action being taken. First, there are a great many candidates. There can be anything up to 21, with 4 having to be chosen from the list. This represents a tremendous task for any elector.
If we study the results of that election we find that in many cases there were as many as 10,000 lost votes. I submit that most of those came from people who were anxious not to vote for the wrong candidates and, therefore, did not vote for their full quota of candidates. We are told, according to a recent piece of research—a report of which appeared in the Press at the weekend—that many electors gave preference to candidates at the top of the list—in other words, at the beginning of the alphabetical order. The researcher purported to prove this by showing the successful candidates in each case and the position they occupied in alphabetical order.
Even more important is the problem that arises where more than one candidate has the same name, or where candidates have similar names. There was a perfect example in Wandsworth, where two candidates had the name Pritchard—one Liberal and one Labour. The Labour candidate received 6,000 fewer votes than his Labour colleagues while the Liberal Pritchard—good luck to him—received roughly 6,000 votes more than his Liberal colleagues. I suggest that on that occasion the Liberal candidate received some votes to which he was not entitled. In Brent, the successful Conservative candidate, Mrs. Forbes Cockell, had 3,000 votes fewer than the other successful Conservative candidates and the most successful Labour candidate, Mrs. Forbes, reecived 3,000 votes more than her colleagues. Obviously, the problem is worse when names are similar and there is therefore an obvious need, which is getting worse because of the trend towards larger areas.
People who have agreed that this is a desirable reform have nevertheless asked how I would ensure that the perverse candidate did not take the name of


a political party to gain votes. It works both ways. Sometimes it would be unwise to adopt a party's name if one's object was to be different. However, where it is a problem it would be dealt with.
The first Clause of the Bill would provide that political allegiance could be put on ballot and nomination papers and the second would provide for registration of parties. This can be worked out in detail, but the major parties could register with an electoral commission or the existing Registrar of Friendly Societies and obtain a "patent" on their name so that others could not use it. I would not go as far as some Continental countries, which do not allow candidates to stand unless they belong to a political party.
This can be worked out in Committee. I would think that the ideal solution would be registration of parties and no description on a ballot paper of those without a political label. In this way, we would retain the individual's freedom to stand, providing that his nomination papers were signed, but he would not be able to use official party labels. That would be a typical and effective British compromise.
Two objections might be raised to this Measure. First, it might be argued that it would help voters too much and that they should find out for themselves who the candidates are. This is difficult because of the size of the areas concerned, but the important democratic principle consists in an elector making up his mind to go to a polling booth and cast his vote. Once he has decided, it is then incumbent on the House to pass laws to make it as easy as possible for him to identify the candidates.
The second objection might be made that this would recognise parties for the first time in a Constitution. I agree, and why not? Why do we as a country try to hide the actions of political parties as something not quite nice and a little shameful? We know that the political process is worked on a party basis and if the electors are sometimes disdainful of politicians and their activities, we must bear some blame because our laws try to sweep them under the table. I am therefore not worried that this would introduce recognition of political parties.
I submit this suggestion then and hope that the House will give me leave to introduce a Bill which makes sense in modern political terms and would be widely welcomed and simple to operate.

10.15 a.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I rise to oppose the Motion. The way in which the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Mr. Coe) seeks to deal with this matter is unworkable and his Bill is the wrong way to go about it. The Bill's long title is no good because it does not contain the words "… purposes connected therewith ". Any hon. Member who has tried to introduce a Private Member's Bill knows that if those words do not appear all kinds of objections will be raised to all his aims when he tries to have the Bill printed. If the hon. Member is given leave, I hope that he will deal with that, because on that basis he seems doomed to failure.
Also, he has not dealt with the whole problem, which must be tackled. This is a vexed question. I attempted to deal with the matter as long ago as 15th July, 1964, when I was given leave to introduce a Bill. Although I included the words "purposes connected therewith" in my long title, I could not get the Bill printed because the clerk said that almost everything I wanted to do was out of order. Although I had the leave of the House and had left every possible loophole to get the Bill into writing, I found it impossible. The hon. Member has stymied himself from the very start.
I agree with him that there has been enormous confusion, especially in the Greater London Council elections. In 1964, I referred to the G.L.C. elections of that year. It has been worse on this occasion, and one person may even have been elected in error. I went to vote in the Westminster Division of the Council but discovered on looking at my ballot paper that I knew the names of only three of the candidates whom I wished to support and could therefore only vote for three. I was one of the lost voters.
In spite of this, I cannot feel that a Private Member's Bill can tackle this problem. In any case, the hon. Member's Bill would have no hope of discussion unless the Government gave it time, and, although they have done some strange things in that direction, I doubt


whether they would give time to this. If the hon. Member is given leave to have the Bill printed at public expense, I am certain that he will not be able to print what he wants. My Bill was never printed at all.
The hon. Member dealt with descriptions on ballot papers but did not suggest that christian names as well as surnames might be printed in full in the same large print. That might have been a help. Nor did the hon. Member deal with the question of standardising the printing of ballot papers. In the city of Bristol at the last election, every constituency had a different style of lettering. Gothic or Old English lettering was not used but every type of Roman, some of it less legible than others. This should have been dealt with.
The hon. Member skated over the question of a candidate's description. This could apply to his occupation as well as his political allegiance. A description should be designed to indicate the candidate's present occupation.
The hon. Member might have dealt with the very vexed question of the largely fictitious present occupations of Members of Parliament seeking re-election to this House. His own party must find itself in enormous difficulty because in it are full-time politicians. As they always tell the House, they are whole-time Members of Parliament. What is such a person when he ceases to be a Member and is seeking re-election?

Mr. Eric Ogden: Mr. Eric Ogden (Liverpool, West Derby) rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We do not usually have interventions in a Ten Minute Rule speech.

Mr. Cooke: I am sorry if I have transgressed on some point.
This is a very valid objection. The description of a former Member seeking re-election may be in many cases largely fictitious if he is a whole-time Member of Parliament.
The hon. Member suggested that party labels should be, as it were, patented. That is wholly unacceptable. What happens if there is a party split in a constituency or if a great monolithic party machine has its own candidate and a former Member of this House breaks with his party and stands for election?

The late Sir Winston Churchill provided a classic example. Is a great political party, Conservative, Labour or Liberal, to be able to patent a party label? That is quite unacceptable. On the other hand, if party labels were allowed we could deal with a number of people who wanted to use the same label. If there were no agreement among all the candidates in an election as to what labels should be allowed to be used, they could use no labels of any kind. The hon. Member did not deal with this position, but it certainly could not be left to the discretion of the returning officer.
The hon. Member did not deal with the question of cranks. Some people might want to stand for election for quite frivolous reasons. The hon. Member did not deal with the question of the deposit in such cases—an increase to £300 might discourage cranks. It is not impossible at present for some crank, quite legally, to change his name to that of a candidate in the constituency in which he wants to make a demonstration. I go so far as to suggest that if some people were up to no good and wanted to create mischief they could change their names to your name, Mr. Speaker, or to mine simply by giving the appropriate notice in a newspaper. Then they could create complete confusion. I shall not go over what has happened in Bristol, but I remember on one occasion an elector coming to me and saying, "I voted for you, Mr. Cooke". I replied, "You could not have done that because the General Election is not until next week." He said, "Oh yes, you were standing for the council." He had in fact voted in error for a Labour local government candidate.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Ten Minute Rule applies to speeches in opposition as well as to speeches in support.

Mr. Cooke: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I was almost interrupted and I am sorry if I protracted my remarks. I will bring my speech rapidly to a conclusion. The hon. Member's suggestion of the way in which this problem might be tackled is wholly unacceptable. Action is needed, but not in this way. I therefore oppose this suggestion.

Question put (pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 {Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business), and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Denis Coe, Mr. Arthur Davidson, Dr. Ernest Davies, Mr. William Hamling, Mr. Alexander W. Lyon, Mr. James Tinn and Mr. David Watkins.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT 1949 (AMENDMENT) (No. 2) BILL

Bill to require reference to be made on nomination and ballot papers at parliamentary and local elections to the political or other allegiances of candidates, and to make provision to avoid inaccurate use of such allegiances, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 2nd June and to be printed. [Bill 251.]

FISHING VESSEL GRANTS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

10.25 a.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): >: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a short and simple Bill which I think will be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I do not think there will be any controversy about the purposes of the Bill in the sense that there will be political division over it.
On 1st March my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary told the House that we proposed to increase the rates of grant for expenditure on fishing vessels by 5 per cent. but that legislation would be required for this purpose. The existing rates of 35 per cent. and 40 per cent, are at the statutory maxima. This Bill seeks to remove those maxima. If the House passes the Bill, we shall then amend the current scheme of grants to provide for the increased rates promised by my hon. Friend. The proposed new rates will be 40 per cent. for vessels of 80 ft. or more in length and 45 per cent. for smaller vessels. They will apply to investment in the calendar years 1967 and 1968.
There will be a further opportunity to discuss the proposed increase in the rates on the affirmative Resolution to approve the amending scheme. The sole purpose of the Bill is to make an increase possible. We shall then have the same power to increase the rates of grant for investment in fishing vessels as we shall have for investment in agriculture and manufacturing industry.
The extra stimulus to investment in 1967 and 1968 is as important to the fishing industry as it is in other sectors. I am sure that there is no disagreement here. The fishing industry has done well in increasing its catches despite the downward trend of the fish stocks. Indeed, the 1966 catch was the highest for 10 years, and it was secured with fewer vessels and fewer men.
The key to increasing productivity lies in new investment. There is no doubt


about this. It is important and I stress it. Good progress has been made with the modernisation of the fleet. But more remains to be done. Research and development are constantly yielding improvements in design and better equipment and it is essential that the industry should be enabled to take full advantags of them.
This is not the occasion for a general debate on policy, but there are other aspects of the Government's policy towards investment in the industry in which I know hon. Members on both sides of the House are interested. As my hon. Friend said in the debate on the grants scheme two months ago, a review of policy is in progress. We are taking account of the relevant recommendations of the Estimates Committee and I hope that we shall be in a position to give a reply to the Committee before long. I cannot go beyond that.
I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members opposite for facilitating the introduction of this Bill so that the necessary incentives to investment can be introduced as soon as possible. I commend the Bill to the House.

10.30 a.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: As the Minister said, this is a short and simple Bill. The industry will appreciate the trouble the Minister has taken in personally introducing the Bill to the House. Equally, I think that the Minister will agree that all modern fisheries legislation stems from the Fleck Committee's Report of 1961. The Fleck Committee's broad recommendation in paragraph 338 was that
the aim should be to maintain it"—
that is, the fleet——
at approximately the catching power necessary to maintain the current levels of supplies for the next ten years at least.
Referring to the question of building grants, which we are discussing on the Bill, the Committee said this in paragraph 341:
Building grants make a direct contribution towards the modernisation of the fleet, provide money precisely at the time when it is most needed for this purpose and are easy to administer.
As a result of the Fleck Committee's Report, in 1962 a scheme of grants of 25 per cent. and 30 per cent. of cost was introduced However, in 1966 investment

allowances were withdrawn and were replaced by an additional grant of 10 per cent. This matter was debated in March, when ceilings on types or individual vessels were removed and the conditions of grant were made much wider and much improved. The Opposition greatly welcomed that scheme.
I want to remind the House that during our debate in March my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Baker) pointed out that in the past seven years the cost of a 70 ft. inshore vessel had increased from £20,000 to £39,000. All of us who represent fishing ports know that this escalation of costs has taken place throughout the fleet, whatever the type of vessel. These increased costs must be taken into account if the aim laid down by the Fleck Committee is to be achieved.
The Minister told us that the Bill removes the maximum limits on the rates of grant and will therefore permit the industry to come in line with the shipbuilding industry which has received an extra 5 per cent. grant for this year and for 1968. The Minister said that it will need an affirmative Resolution to make the new rate of grant for fishing vessels 40 per cent. for those over 80 ft. and 45 per cent. for those under 80 ft. We believe that the Bill is fully justified and I assure the Minister that it has our full support.
However, there are a number of questions related to the Bill which I want ask whether a decision on this matter has ing. In the Fishing Vessels (Acquisition and Improvement) (Grants) Scheme, 1967, allowance was made, under certain safeguards, for grants of from 20 per cent. to 30 per cent. to be made for British vessels built in foreign yards. Will the additional 5 per cent. proposed under the Bill be available for foreign-built vessels?
My second question was raised in the previous debate and concerns competitive tendering, which is essential before a grant can be awarded or approved by the White Fish Authority. I will not go into this aspect in detail. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that the Estimates Committee referred to this point and in the reply given to the previous debate it was said that the matter was being taken into consideration.
Without necessarily supporting the views of the Select Committee, may I


ask whether a decision on this matter has been reached? The question of competitive tendering and the whole question of scrapping ratios, which is the next matter about which I want to ask, are of great importance to the owner when he has to decide whether to replace certain of his vessels. The more uncertainty there is, and the greater the period in which there is uncertainty, either over competitive tendering or, even more so, over scrapping ratios, the more difficult it is for owners to plan ahead and replace their fleets as they should.
The present ruling, as repeated during the debate in March, is that two old vessels must be scrapped for every new freezer trawler and one and a half old vessels for every new conventional trawler. It was said most strongly in the previous debate that this distorts the whole pattern of replacement. This is borne out by opinion throughout the industry and was voiced by the Select Committee on Estimates.
In the debate in March we were told by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—
The whole question of scrapping is being looked into …
I appreciate that this is all part of the fisheries review, but it is extremely difficult for owners to plan the rebuilding of their fleets unless they have a definite answer on this subject.
This brings me to the question of the fisheries review, which is, as I understand it, fundamental to the Bill. This review was announced as far back as November, 1964 and at that time it was said that the review would be completed at the end of 1966. Yet in the previous debate the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said this:
We hope that it will be concluded this year, but I cannot give a definite promise."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1967; Vol. 742, c. 1472–4.]
This means that the review, at best, will be completed a year later than was promised.
In opening, the Minister mentioned that the date for the review to be completed is still uncertain. I hope that the Minister who winds up the debate will be able to give us a little more positive information about the review. If the review is further delayed, is it possible for

the Ministry to make a decision, particularly on scrapping ratios, and also, if possible, on the requirement for competitive tendering?
The Minister spoke of the importance of research and development to this industry, as well as to every other industry. We on this side thoroughly agree with him. The Bill removes the maximum limit for building grants. Is the Minister satisfied that the Bill, together with all the related legislation, allows sufficient scope for the development of new and experimental types of fishing vessels? There is considerable diversity, not only in the various sections of the industry—inshore, middle, distant water, and so on—but also in the various different types of ship—the wet fish trawler, the freezer trawler, and now the filleter freezer.
Has the Minister studied the recent symposium at Grimsby, and particularly a paper written by Mr. Eddie, the Technical Director of the White Fish Authority, which was reported in detail in the Fishing News of 21st April? This is relevant to the Bill, because it deals with changes which this gentleman, who has great technical knowledge, believes must take place in the design of ships for the fishing fleet.
I want to underline three of the points Mr. Eddie made. He said, first, that we should in the future pay more attention to industrial fisheries—that is, fishing for inedible species of fish designed to be transformed into fish meal. This is very important, because we import a great deal of fish meal in these days. Mr. Eddie said that this may mean new types of vessels and a re-adaptation of existing types.
Mr. Eddie suggested, secondly, that inshore vessels might have to be re-designed to take advantage of large catches obtained by purse-seine or mid-water trawl. This means a vessel which has more beam, which is more powerful, and which fishes over the stern.
Mr. Eddie's third suggestion—I want to deal with the three different types of ships—concerns freezer trawlers. He makes the interesting point that a large number of these new, modern and efficient vessels, have been built and operate from the various distant water ports. The various types of freezer trawler vary considerably in length, power, displacement capital cost and fuel consumption; but,


strangely enough, they all have approximately the same capacity of fish hold—about 25,000 cubic ft.
Mr. Eddie points out that this inevitably means that some ships have a much more basically economic efficient design than others; because obviously, if the size, fuel consumption and power varies, although the same amount of fish can be held, there must be some disparity in the efficiency of the vessels. Mr. Eddie says that, given comparable efficiency of skippers, the efficiency of the vessel, and therefore its productivity, varies considerably. Is the Minister satisfied that the Bill and the associated legislation can give sufficient encouragement for operational research to go into these questions and explore the possibilities thoroughly under the aegis of the White Fish Authority? Will there be sufficient finance to do the research which, as he says, and we all agree, is so important to the future of the industry?
I hope that the Bill will improve the safety standards going into the new vessels and provide even better accommodation for the crews, who have a pretty tough life in three weeks of fishing right up to Iceland or the White Sea, or even a much longer period now with the freezer trawlers going to Greenland, Newfoundland and other parts of the world. These improvements should be facilitated by the Bill, and this is another reason for our support.
The basic object of the Bill is to increase the efficiency of the fishing fleet. This will be of particular importance if we enter the Common Market. As far as we know, most of the Six countries have building subsidies, as we do. I am told that Italy has a 30 per cent., or possibly 40 per cent., grant on the total cost of building; she also has low interest rates for replacement and modernisation. Germany has a system of loans and low interest rates for building and modernisation, together with scrapping grants. France has a State-financed organisation designed to promote vessel ownership and co-operation.
Obviously, investment assistance will have to be harmonised between the Six and ourselves if and when we enter the Common Market, but, as the Minister and the House know, the Common Market has not yet established a com-

mon fisheries policy. After a lot of labour, it has reached a common agricultural policy, but it has not yet got down to a common fisheries policy.
Britain's entry, therefore, should enable us to co-operate and to influence this policy as it is evolved. This will be a matter of great importance for the fishing industry, but it underlines, too, the importance of the Bill itself, because it is essential that our fleet should be as efficient as possible at the time of our entry. This is a further reason why we on this side commend the Bill.

10.42 a.m.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: As a Member with considerable fishing interests in his constituency, I welcome the Bill and the provisions to help the industry. There are, however, several questions which I shall put to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, and, although some of them raise constituency points, namely, those pertaining to the inshore fleet, others have a direct bearing on the entire fishing industry of the United Kingdom.
The Explanatory Memorandum tells us that the estimated additional expenditure will be £350,000 in a full year. What will be the total estimated expenditure with this figure added? In the past, under the schemes produced under the principal Act, the White Fish and Herring Industries Act, 1953, there have been occasions when the kitty has run dry. The White Fish Authority in England and its Scottish Committee, which will administer the schemes under the principal Act and this Bill, have sometimes found themselves not able to meet the requirements for replacement of fishing boats because the kitty has run dry. May we, therefore, have an assurance that the total sum of money will be adequate for the new building which will become necessary as time goes on? In this connection, I endorse the observation of my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), that the scrapping/building ratio needs very careful thought. We have on previous occasions been given some information about it, but we could do with a great deal more.
The Minister said today that the grant would be 45 per cent. for vessels under 80 feet, and I welcome this provision as


against the 40 per cent. for vessels of 80 feet and over. As I have said before in the House, the cost of fishing boats is rising alarmingly, and it seems that costs are going up disproportionately for the smaller vessels as compared with the larger ones. It is for this reason that I welcome the 45 per cent.
The right hon. Gentleman rightly stressed the need for new investment in the fishing industry, as, indeed, in all other British industries. Will the grants be payable for conversion of boats from one type of fishing to another? The Bill is for the actual building of vessels, but, if we are to change our methods of fishing, as will inevitably happen as time goes on, considerable alterations will be necessary for the conversion of boats from one type of fishing to another. It would be wrong if, having given these grants, we found that, in turning from one type of fishing to another, a boat had to become more or less derelict or, perhaps, even written off for want of more money for conversion purposes. I hope that the Government will give us an idea of their thinking on that matter.
The Bill is to run for two years, expiring on 31st December, 1969. It is conceivable that in that time a number of changes will take place in the industry. I have two in mind, one of which I have already mentioned, namely, conversion from one type of fishing to another. I understand that, for example, the Australians are very keen to get red fish, these species being popular in America. It may be necessary to change our fishing methods to catch red fish, which could be canned in this country and exported to America. This development may come quite soon, or it may be a long process. A man wishing to exploit this kind of fishing may wish either to build a new boat or to convert a boat. If he does that, say, on 1st December, 1969, and applies for a grant and loan, and the boat is not constructed until 1970, will the grant at this rate be payable?
My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice said that some of the countries of the Six make grants of this kind but, as far as I could gather in Brussels the other day, there is nothing exactly similar to the provisions of this Bill. Under the Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, payments are available

for this type of thing, though applied to agriculture, not to fishing. Does the Minister think that grants of the kind being given under this Bill will be available under the Common Market system of support?
Finally, I wish to mention research. The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland has its own research vessels of various types dealing with experimentation into handling of gear and so on both, for inshore and distant water fishing. Would it be possible for interested parties to apply for grants for boat building to enable them to do their own research? I have in mind the exploration of the more distant fishing grounds. We have freezer trawlers and the like, and a great deal of research is going on. My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice has already mentioned the article in the Fishing News of 21st April by Mr. Eddie. I too would like to quote from what he says:
… in the world as a whole, fishing effort is still rising rapidly and we are told that we can reckon fairly confidently on being able to double the world catch in the next 20 years.
That will make a considerable contribution to food resources throughout the world. Is it possible for private firms to obtain grants for boats specifically for fishing purposes?
In closing, I again welcome the Bill and hope that it will achieve its object and that we may continue to have a prosperous fishing industry.

10.52 a.m.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I am very glad to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Baker) whose constituency is next to mine. The problems of the fishing industry in his area are similar to those in mine. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will reply to the points my hon. Friend raised.
I also welcome the Bill which enables increased rates of grant to be given for new fishing vessels. That is clearly necessary in the present circumstances. I wish to draw attention to some of the attendant problems which arise. I am particularly concerned with the North of Scotland, with the north-east coast of Scotland and with the Moray Firth in particular. I therefore want to address my remarks especially to the inshore part


of the fishing industry, at least half of which is based on Scotland and which has a vital task in that it brings really fresh fish to our shops and tables.
There is considerable anxiety about the steeply rising cost of new inshore fishing boats and also the rising costs of all the gear necessary to keep those boats in first-class condition and to provide all the extra equipment required in modern fishing. Fishermen wonder whether recent rises in costs have fallen properly within the prices and incomes policy. Perhaps the Minister can reply today on that point, which has puzzled some fishermen.
The question also arises whether large grants have had any effect on the total costs of fishing boats, and as the grants are now to become larger we should consider that question. Are the Government satisfied that when there are very large grants towards new fishing boats, there is no effect in inflating their total price? Some fishermen feel that as the grants have gone up so the prices of boats have soared. I am sure that my hon. Friends have also found this feeling among fishermen. There may be no connection between the rise in grants and rise in boat prices, but the Government should be able to give us their views on this and I should be glad to hear them because they may well allay the fears I have mentioned.
For the future, I ask the Government to look at this matter very closely to make sure that the money being made available in grants does not have the side effect of putting up the total price unnecessarily.
Another point concerns the requirement of a 25 per cent. deposit for new boats. I agree that there should be a deposit, but there are cases where the size of it can mean that able and qualified young fishermen find it difficult to get a new boat. With total costs rising, the deposit gets bigger and bigger. If the grant is to be a bigger proportion, will there be any reduction in the deposit? Will there be any relaxation? Whether such a relaxation has conditions or not, I do not mind, but the Government should address themselves to the cases of able young skippers who should have boats of their own but find it difficult today, particularly with the credit squeeze and

other financially stringent measures, to raise the necessary money for the deposit.
I raised this matter with the Scottish Office recently and the hon. Gentleman who is to reply to the debate was good enough to reply in a letter as recently as 22nd March—on the question of younger men who find it difficult to raise the 25 per cent. deposit on new fishing boats—as follows:
The point will be borne in mind when, on the conclusion of the current review of fisheries policy, decisions are taken as to the future level of loan assistance for the inshore fishing fleet.
Can the Minister give any indication of when that review of policy will be completed? Can he in the meantime give us any statement on the position concerning the deposit? If we have to wait for another year or so before we get the end of the review, the problem will remain, and I hope that he can tell us something about that today.

10.58 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: I also welcome the Bill. I think that it will help stimulate the fishing industry, which is a good thing. It will certainly help in the South-West, where we have had a considerable number of problems recently concerning fishermen and their boats. This little encouragement will be welcomed, particularly in my constituency, with the small fishing ports of Bideford and Appledore. The Minister has been wise in bringing the Bill forward at this time.
I wonder if perhaps it is one of the first moves in the preparation for entry into the Common Market. The Common Market countries spend much more money on their fishing boats and grants, and this is a step in the right direction. Perhaps the Minister could tell us what were the other reasons which prompted the Government to make this increase. The cost of new boats has gone up, new engines have become more expensive, and the value of the £ has dropped considerably. It has therefore become necessary for more money to be found. But is that the only reason? Is the Minister perhaps concerned with the possibility of increasing supplies of fish as our population grows?
I for one would like to know the real reasons behind this move. When we are spending public money, as we are


here, a searching look must be taken at how it is spent. Is it being spent wisely? Is there enough control over this money? In these days of shortage of money, it is most important that great care should be taken to spend wisely. I should also be interested to know what proportion of the increase will be spent on research and whether the best type of boats and engines are being made.
Perhaps I can illustrate by referring to what has happened in agriculture. When grants, particularly improvement grants, are made for agriculture, builders usually ask whether certain work is under grant. If it is, I am afraid that in many cases the cost of the building is much higher and that one can sometimes get it cheaper without a grant. I am not saying that this is always so, or that it would apply to those who build fishing boats or engines, but it is a point which needs watching, with the rapidly rising costs of boats and engines, to ensure that the builders are not taking advantage of the fact that fishermen are getting these grants. In agriculture, this is a bad and dangerous point, and I do not want it spread to the fishing industry as well.
I trust that this increase will also be directed to the many schemes in operation for the co-operative building of fishing boats and the supply of engines. Such a venture we have in the South-West, in the Torbay area and in Brixham which is probably one of the most successful schemes ever put forward and developed in the South-West.
From a rather broken and run-down fishing fleet manned by dispirited men, there has been a change to one of the most flourishing fleets in the South-West and great credit is due to all who promoted that transformation. I hope that this money will again be directed to such ends and that there will be no restriction on those who seek to bring about these improvements in a co-operative way.
These grants are for construction and improvement. What proportions of the money are to be spent on each? How is it to be divided up? Which is it better to do—build new boats or modernise old ones? In my view, looking to the future, it is very important to have new boats because we shall have severe competition from—we can no longer call them "foreign" boats—but from "common"

friends and "common" fishermen. It is important, therefore, to have new boats rather than modernised older boats.
This is an important point to those of us who live in development areas. The increase will stimulate and help those firms building small boats in development areas such as mine, particularly in the Bideford and Appledore area. We build many good boats in my constituency. They are strong and seaworthy and this money will be a real encouragement. It will help with the unemployment situation in development areas. What proportion of the money do the Government thnk should be or can be directed to development areas where these small boats are built? This is an important point, because the increase can have a beneficial effect and give encouragement to boat builders in these areas.
In the Bill, there is reference to an increase of 5 per cent. in a full year and this means an expenditure of £350,000. Is there a limit to the total? What is the total sum involved in the scheme on new boats and new engines? How is it being divided up? What proportions will go to the South-West, Scotland and other parts of the country? Will too big a proportion of money go to the main and bigger fishing areas, possibly to the neglect of the smaller fishing areas such as the South-West? I hope that the money will be fairly divided up.
Can the hon. Gentleman tell us roughly what is the return on this sort of grant? Is he satisfied that we are getting value for money? It is important to know exactly what sort of returns we are getting over the years from this kind of expenditure. In agriculture, one can see clearly the tremendous increase in productivity. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us whether this is also true of the fishing industry.
The grants are to be paid on or after 1st January, 1967. What grants will be given to boats under order or under construction before that date? It takes some time to build a fishing boat and I would not like to see those who started before that date penalised in any way.
In the 1953 Act, the grants were applied to fishing vessels with a maximum length of 140 ft. Is that maximum enough these days with fishing vessels


getting bigger and bigger? Should not the lower limits be raised? Is it proper, correct and wise that we should be giving grants to the very small boats? I do not know, but I should like to hear what the Minister has to say.

Mr. G. Campbell: On this point, does my hon. Friend recall that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs once made a speech from this side of the House in which he eloquently advocated that the "Queen Mary" and the "Queen Elizabeth" should be equipped as trawlers?

Mr. Mills: I do not recall that, but it is an interesting point. I imagine that it would be some sort of stern fishing.
I am particularly interested in the question of the grants for new engines. I wonder what type of engine the Minister has in mind. Is he intending to concentrate on the provision of new diesels, or has research work shown that other types are necessary? What encouragement is being given to research in boat propulsion?
The 1953 Act also refers to those who are "proposing" to go into fishing or who are actually engaged in it. I believe that this increase will probably encourage new entrants—which means those "proposing" to go into the industry. I want to see men return to this industry, particularly in the South-West. This would help solve our economic problems quite considerably. I welcome the Bill. It is a step in the right direction. But I hope that very much more will be done.
Does the wording of the 1953 Act rule out those who are, perhaps, what I call "casual" fishermen—those engaged, for example, in fishing at certain times of the year and who help with the holiday trade at other times? I am not saying that we want to encourage the giving of these grants to part-timers, but there is a case for giving encouragement to those who help provide holiday amenities. I do not want them to be ruled out altogether.

Mr. Baker: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is an increasing amount of sea angling? Does he agree that possibly grants should be available for boats for this purpose?

Mr. Mills: I do indeed. There is a particularly flourishing shark fishing industry at Looe which brings in welcome money to the hard-pressed fishermen of the South-West. I hope that the Minister has taken note of that—

Mr. William Baxter: Since the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues advocate increased grants to more people, what taxes would they impose to get that money?

Mr. Mills: This is a typical red herring—

Sir Frank Pearson: Would my hon. Friend agree that the Government have levied such heavy taxes that there is no need to levy more and that resources are already ample to cope with his proposals?

Mr. Mills: Mr. Mills rose—

Mr. Baxter: Mr. Baxter rose—

Mr. Mills: With great respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am not being allowed to continue with my speech.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): It is entirely within the hon. Member's discretion whether he gives way or not.

Mr. Mills: I thought that I was being polite.
Will this money cover the new and modern equipment which these boats need? This is vital, because of possible Common Market competition, but it is very expensive. Also, more safety equipment is needed to ensure that lives are saved. I hope that a fair proportion will be spent on new equipment. Will the money cover the cost of removing old engines and fitting new diesel engines, which is expensive and causes a loss to fishermen?
The increase in these rates will cover more fishing. This is good and right, but it surely means—the Ministry will have to watch this closely—that the limits of our existing territorial waters must be maintained. There is strong feeling on this in the South-West, and I hope that, because there will be more fishing and better equipped boats, the Ministry will take a very strong stand on this, particularly as we enter the Common Market. We should not give


way on this but should keep to the present limits so that our modern and well-equipped new vessels will have the right to fish in their own waters. I hope that this point will be passed on to the Minister.

11.14 a.m.

Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: I also welcome the Bill and am glad that we are agreed on the benefits which it will bring to the industry. There is a growing interest in fishing in the north and west of Scotland. Many more young people are interested because of the better protection to the fishing grounds and the fact that they see a future in the industry. It is chiefly East Coast crews who fish from the north and west ports because fishing has declined on the west coast in the past, and crews have left for other employment. We are anxious now that local people should return to the industry.
Two factors are important in this connection—the training of crews and the cost of boats. Young men are anxious to take up fishing and there is a scheme to train them if boats are available. This increase in grant will certainly enable many younger crews, once they are trained, to have boats of their own, which will be to their advantage.
We receive substantial help in this direction from the Highlands and Islands Development Board, and I am sure that the Minister will see that this continues. I hope that he will see that a fair proportion of the money goes to the Highlands and Islands. I warmly support the Bill.

11.16 a.m.

Sir John Gilmour: Although my hon. Friends have mentioned the boats built in the Moray Firth, I am sure they will agree that the boats built in the east of Fife are even better. One of the troubles is that they are so well built that they last too long, which is a disadvantage in keeping a shipyard adequately employed.
The bones of the Bill are the prices which fishermen receive for fish. I have had representations from fishermen in my constituency that they are not happy with the new arrangements for supporting the inshore fishermen. Yesterday's announcement that we are seeking entry of the

Common Market raises the question of whether the fishing limits will mean that we must share our inshore waters with the other countries of the Common Market. If so, what encouragement will there be to people to build new boats?
We have had so much experience of foreign vessels trawling in the Moray Firth area, even when our own men were kept out under our regulations—

Mr. Peter Mills: Does my hon. Friend recall that in the South-West, when what we call the "Frenchies" have come over, shots have been fired? This could easily happen again.

Sir J. Gilmour: These troubles go on all the time. Polish vessels have been spoiling line fishing in the North-East of Scotland. If our limits were increased, that would not only improve the fishing but allow more fish to breed, so that more would be caught. Many foreign vessels fish in Scottish waters. Russian vessels have fished off Orkney and for many weeks in the year a Polish "mother vessel" sits off the runway at Leuchars Airport with catching vessels going out. They shelter in St. Andrew's Bay, where they fish outside the limits.
This shows that there is a real danger in our entry of the Common Market if it means that our inshore waters must be shared with the other six, seven or eight countries. I hope that we will be given some information about that—

Mr. G. Campbell: There has been a good deal of misunderstanding about this, so perhaps I could mention that the prohibition in the Moray Firth is on trawlers only. Most, if not all, of the boats based in the Firth are inshore boats of other types which have always fished in the Moray Firth and continue to do so outside the three mile limit. If we enter the Common Market, there will have to be an agreement under which the prohibition on trawlers will apply to the other member countries as well.

Sir J. Gilmour: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information.
If we are to get a better harvest from the sea, the protection and conservation of our waters is essential. I was interested to see the other day that the Services in the United States co-operate with the fishing authorities by dumping old motor cars off aircraft carriers to provide


a reef under the sea, which fisherman cannot fish on because if they did they would tear their gear to pieces. This makes a very good breeding ground for fish. Perhaps this is something which we could consider. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh, but the United States Navy and Air Force are co-operating in doing something which is really useful. We are faced with this terrific problem of people dumping old motor cars on roadside verges and despoiling the country. We are concerned in the Scottish Standing Committee with the Countryside Bill by which we are trying to improve amenities. If we could get rid of old motor cars and at the same time improve fishing, this would be very well worth while.
I should like to ask the Under-Secretary of State whether it would be possible to make an extra payment to people who experiment. At the moment, people get a 40 or 45 per cent. grant, no matter whether they produce exactly the same things as were produced five, six or seven years ago or whether they produce something new. Most people would agree that the cost of experimenting and making something new is greater. There might be a case for paying something more for experimental work so as to encourage people, not just to renew boats exactly as they were, proved and tried though they might be, but to produce something new. This ties up with the question of safety at sea.
We had an interesting visit from the Development Division of the White Fish Authority in Anstruther the other day. It tried to convince fishermen to take up new methods and to change their gear to a certain extent. This leads to extra expense. In times of credit squeeze, and particularly since we had more storms and gales this winter than for many years, there has been no great encouragement for people to spend more money on experimental work. If more of the catch could be brought in over the stern of the vessel, no matter what type it might be, this would make for greater safety than if the fish were brought over the side of the vessel with the dangers inherent therein. I hope that the Minister will indicate whether it is possible to give more encouragement to experimental work, because I am sure that it would be of real value in achieving greater safety.
I am glad that this Measure has been brought forward and I give it my support.

11.24 a.m.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I rise to speak very briefly and, predictably, to welcome the Bill. It would take a very brave man to oppose the Bill. Certainly no one in the Chamber has attempted to oppose it, although it has not received a welter of enthusiasm.
The debate possibly has suffered to some extent in that it has come so soon after the debate which we had in March. The speech of the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall)—I do not say this in any carping sense because it was inevitable—tended to have a rather familiar ring about it. Many of the points which have been aired on the benches opposite can be found in the columns of HANSARD for 8th March. This is not a bad thing, because the Government are engaged in this so-called and, perhaps one might almost say, notorious general review of the fishing industry. It is clear that the delay in completing this task has been longer than was expected and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State would be the first to agree that back bench Members should try to keep the pressure on and to keep chipping away for the answers which they want, although they may make a rather oppressive reading for those who scour the pages of the OFFICIAL REPORT.
I represent a constituency in a port which is largely engaged in middle distance fishing as distinct from most hon. Members who have spoken and who represent near water interests. For Aberdeen, the problem of vessel replacement baulks very large. Our fleet does not enjoy the famous balanced age structure about which we have heard so much in recent fishing debates and about which the Minister has heard so much in recent months. Our fleet was modernised all at once in the late 1950s, thanks to the co-operation of the White Fish Authority and is now marching solidly, if one might put it, into reshaping and old age at the same time. If we are to replace the Aberdeen fleet, we shall be faced with the problem of laying down in two or three years, in the early 1970s, a very large number of new keels.
This brings us up against the question of the scrapping ratio which was mentioned on 8th March. If for conventional trawlers we stand on the 1½–1 ratio, when there is a situation such as there is in Aberdeen, we must look over a very short period—two or three years—for a very large reduction in the number of boats fishing out of Aberdeen. An inflexible insistence on the present policy and rules would lead exactly to this result.
I have said before, and I have no hesitation in saying it again, that I hope that the Government will look very carefully at paragraph 33 of the Estimates Committee's Report which suggested that the fears which prompted the scrapping ratio policy had been very largely exaggerated. But there is very little case for maintaining it in its present rigid form.

Mr. David Gibson-Watt: I support what the hon. Gentleman is saying. My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) made the same point. The hon. Gentleman is right in what he says about the ratio. Would he agree that members on both sides of the House should be urging the Government to complete the review referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice? Will he and his colleagues from the other side of Aberdeen help to push the Government in this direction?

Mr. Dewar: In my very modest way, I certainly accept that. I have referred to the fact that the review is taking longer than I would like, and certainly longer than hon. Members opposite would like. I will return to that point in about 15 seconds, in the last sentence of my speech.
I am not sure that I understand the procedural niceties which have forced us to approach the Bill in this way, although I gather that we shall probably have an affirmative order in the near future which will allow us to ask exactly the same questions in exactly the same way and get exactly the same answers from the Government. Whether that is an advertisement for the technical ingenuity involved, I am not sure.
I am interested in the question of the scrapping ratio. Even when we get our extra 5 per cent., there will be cash problems in the mass replacement of the Aberdeen fleet. The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell)

talked about initial cash deposits. Very large sections of the Aberdeen fleet are having great difficulty in covering their depreciation, let alone making adequate profits and putting aside reserve cash funds. It may well be that we shall again have a very considerable cash crisis and the White Fish Authority or the Government once more will have to look very sympathetically at the problems when they arise.
I hope that the comprehensive review about which we have been talking will be pushed on with a great deal of energy. I am a little suspicious of the suggestion that one or two piecemeal solutions should be brought forward. If the Government were to do that, it might be an excuse for putting off the final general review for even longer. I would much prefer a final energetic spurt and the possibility in the next few months of the Government's mind being made up and revealed to the House. This would remove a great deal of uncertainty in the industry and would gain the approbation and whole hearted support of both sides of the House.

11.30 a.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I welcome the Bill in so far as it aids fishermen. The fishermen of England, although they are still sung about by amateur dramatic societies, tend to be forgotten by the general public. We read a great deal in the Press about industrial work and each side of the House vies with the other to produce measures which will increase the employment of industrial workers, although those measures are sometimes very controversial, such as the Selective Employment Tax. In their recent Green Paper the Government have proposed that the use of Selective Employment Tax should be extended in the development areas.
The House may recollect that on 10th March, when I was moving a Motion about unemployment in the South-West, I put forward the suggestion that it would be wiser to develop those industries already in existence in development areas rather than to concentrate on trying to introduce new industries. One of the industries in the South-West that I mentioned was fishing, because of its immense economic importance in reducing the import of food and helping thereby to keep straight the balance of payments.
Cornwall is a traditional fishing area and the crest of Cornwall is flanked by two figures one of whom is intended to be a tin miner and the other a pilchard fisherman. Both industries have declined for reasons not due to lack of the product with which they deal. There is no shortage of tin and there is no substantial shortage of fish. But methods have changed and the product which people are prepared to buy has changed, and so the inshore fisherman is at a considerable disadvantage if he seeks to carry on with the traditional methods. It is, therefore, absolutely essential that he should have new and improved methods.
Grants for improvements in fishing are more important to inshore men than to either the middle water or distant fleets. The bigger vessels have been improved to a large extent, but the inshore men are still struggling, so far as they struggle at all, very largely with the older types of vessel. In Mevagissey, in my constituency, we have a fish canning factory which some years ago suggested that it would be prepared to tin tunny, on the supposition that a large proportion of the tinned tunny sold in this country came from the coastal waters of Southern Ireland, where it is caught by Spanish fishermen and canned on the Continent, which is ridiculous when Cornwall is so much closer to the waters concerned. But, so far as I know, nobody has done anything about this proposition, largely, I suppose, because the Cornish inshore boats are too small. With improved and slightly larger boats, Cornish ports might be able to undertake this type of fishing and one hopes that these grants will encourage fishermen to get such vessels.
The same sort of consideration applies to pilchards. I am not satisfied that enough has been made of pilchard fishing, in that we are still concentrating attention on selling pilchards canned in tomato juice, which has a very limited sale. The pilchard is the same fish as the sardine and if it were filleted and sold in a club can with olive oil, it could compete with the sardine market. I recollect that the Fleck Report, or some other Report produced at about that time, said that there were still plenty of pilchards in the Channel and that, with modern methods and slightly larger vessels, it would be possible to increase the catch.
I hope that the inshore fishermen will take advantage of the Bill and improve their vessels, or get new vessels. I hope that the Bill is also part of a package deal by the Ministry in that it will not confine itself merely to encouraging the development of new vessels, for many of the problems of the fishing industry, certainly for the inshore men, are connected with marketing. Until there are appropriate markets and channels through which fish can be got to the public, it is no good paying grants for fishermen to improve vessels which will not be used unless the catch can be readily and profitably disposed of.
With those remarks and reservations, I welcome the Bill as a step in the right direction.

11.35 a.m.

Mr. Michael Hamilton: I do not want to delay the House or appear in any way critical, but there are one or two small matters in the Bill about which we should be told a little more before we agree to the Second Reading. As I do not always attend these fishing debates, perhaps I ought to explain to the Under-Secretary that there was a time when I myself considered going into the industry, and certainly even nowadays there are moments when I wish that I had instead of being locked up here.
I remember going on one occasion to stay in Glasgow where I looked at four boats whose bread and butter was herring fishing. They were based on Loch Fyne. The interesting thing was that one of the four had been converted into a mother ship, with tanks on board, and all of them had harpoons mounted in the bows. During six weeks in the summer, they went to the Hebrides where they fished for sharks, which was a considerable attraction to me at that time and, as shark oil was fetching £120 a ton it was an economic proposition. However, that fell through, but I stress that I have retained my interest in and fondness for the fishing industry.
I want, as the Under-Secretary does, to see the fishing industry in a healthy state and, obviously, loans and grants and subsidies were absolutely necessary to it in the days of which I have been speaking, particularly in order that it could recoup from its war-time losses. I am also anxious that the industry should be sufficiently modernised to be able to operate


independently. I would like it to be in such good shape that it no longer had to rely on subsidies.
I accept that our fishing fleets make a valuable contribution to the economy. I do not know the exact figure, but I imagine that about £1 million worth a week of its products are bought and consumed in this country, and certainly over the last 10 or 15 years many new keels have been laid while dieselisation and modernisation have made considerable progress.
But here we are debating subsidies within hours of the Prime Minister's statement that we are applying for membership of the European Economic Community. This is something which has already been mentioned this morning by my hon. Friends the Members for Haltem-price (Mr. Wall), Banff (Mr. Baker), Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) and Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour), and it is relevant to the matter which we are debating this morning. We are told that the Government, quite rightly, accept the Community's agricultural and fisheries policy. Within the Community it has been found necessary to eliminate separate national policies, that is to say, different levels of intervention and protection. The support arrangements of independent member States have had to be standardised. All this leads quite soon to a free trade among member States in fish and fish products.
That being so, I would welcome a brief clarification of the relevance of the Bill to our application for membership of the Community. The rate of grant envisaged may well need to be reconsidered. If the industry has to stand on its own feet, though this may be a rather painful process, how do the Government see this being arranged? How will the support be phased out, if this is what is to happen? If the industry has to live without grants anyway, should it not learn sooner rather than later, thereby relieving the hard-pressed taxpayer to whom reference has already been made?
Alternatively, can the case be made that insufficient progress has been made in modernisation and that the industry is not yet in a position to meet the full challenge that awaits it? If this is so, ought not the rates of grant to be stepped up? In other words, should not the in-

dustry have an extra shot in the arm now while this is still possible and before it has to go into the ring?
It would be a mistake to underestimate the competition the industry will meet from the French, the Belgian and the Dutch fleets in the years immediately ahead. It would therefore be helpful if the Under-Secretary would comment on the adequacy or inadequacy of this little Bill in the light of the present situation.
The Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland? What is envisaged here? No doubt the reason is a technical one, but Ulster is an integral part of the United Kingdom and all of us are conscious that here unemployment level today is running at 9 per cent. I should therefore like a word of reassurance from the Under-Secretary to the effect that whatever rates of grant are applied here will be applied in not less degree there.
Northern Ireland has, and will always have, a high freight cost factor to meet. If we join the Community, and if the Channel Tunnel materialises, this natural handicap will become more pronounced. Before agreeing to approve the Second Reading of the Bill, I want to be assured that Northern Ireland is not being left out in the cold. I have no reason this morning to believe that the Bill is not to be Welcomed.
It would help those of us who represent inland constituencies, and who therefore are not well versed in these very complicated grants, but who are nevertheless keenly interested in the implications of the Government's European policy, if the Under-Secretary would comment briefly on these points and set the Bill in its new context, in the light of yesterday's statement by the Prime Minister.

11.44 a.m.

Mr. Walter Clegg: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) in welcoming what has turned out now to be the intermittent presence of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It is always nice to hear somebody talking about fishing from the Government Front Bench who speaks with an accent of England rather than with the accent of Scotland. It is a pleasant change, if I may say so without disrespect to those of


my hon. Friends who come from Scotland.
The Minister's first departure this morning coincided with my hon. Friend's reference to the Common Market. Whether this was a mere matter of coincidence, or whether the Minister went to get the support of his Parliamentary Private Secretary, I know not. Perhaps his departure had some significance.
I join other hon. Members in welcoming this Measure, which was heralded in the previous debate. I do not think that it is any great gift or concession to the industry, because, as I understand it, the 5 per cent. will merely bring this industry into line with other industries which received the 5 per cent. when the investment grants were increased.
I understand that the Chancellor's object in increasing the investment grant by 5 per cent. was to give a boost to falling investment. I welcome this increase, but I question whether a 5 per cent. boost, or Is. in the £—£350,000— is sufficient to urge fishing vessel owners to build new vessels or to modify existing ones. I have my doubts about whether this is a sufficient boost in the context of industry generally, and in the context of the fishing industry in particular.
I particularly welcome the fact that to get this increase we have had to abolish the limits which were set out in the 1953 Act. This will make the position for the industry far more flexible than it has been and will enable the Minister to react more quickly and easily by introducing schemes to the House than he could while the limitation remained in the Act.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) raised the question of the effect of entry into the Common Market on our inshore fishermen in particular. There are inshore fishermen in my constituency. Doubts have been raised about the question of the Community fishermen being able to fish wherever they like. This would mean that the limits would go. It is, perhaps, a little alarmist to say that this is even likely to be the position. The fishing policy of the E.E.C. has not yet been settled. I have a feeling in my bones that the fishermen of France and other European countries will be just as keen

to defend their limits as we are to defend ours. It would be dangerous to assume, in the absence of further information, that this will be the policy of the Common Market.
My hon. Friends the Members for Haltemprice and for Salisbury (Mr. Michael Hamilton) referred to the position once we entered the Community. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice, I have tried to do some research into the different levels of subsidy, grant or allowance paid, not only by E.E.C. countries, but by countries outside the Community. Information which my hon. Friend gave showed that in the E.E.C. countries there are various levels of help and various forms of assistance. So far, at least, there seems to be no common pattern.
I therefore hope that, if we are to go into Europe, we shall be there in sufficient time to influence the pattern of support rather than for it to be settled while we are still outside the Community.
It is not only the question of the E.E.C. which we must consider in relation to price support given by other countries to their fishing fleets. The research I did in the Library enabled me to find pamphlets and books produced on behalf of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations comparing the different kinds of support in countries all over the world. These seemed to be confined to what we call countries of the free world. What I could not find out was the level of support given by Communist or Socialist countries to their fishing fleets.
As everyone knows, we have to compete seriously with the Poles and the Russians fishing the same fishing grounds as our own fishermen use. It would be of great interest if a study could be made of the levels of help given by Governments to their fishing industries. It would enable us to know whether we were being generous or mean to our own fishermen. If a Paper could be produced by the Ministry, it would be of tremendous help to us in various ways, especially when we are considering E.E.C. questions.
I come now to a problem which affects my own fishing port of Fleetwood, that is, the need to attract new fishermen into the industry and to bring back some of those who have been to sea and have left.


This is becoming an increasingly difficult problem because our hake fishing grounds off the West Coast have been badly overfished and our trawlers now have to make longer journeys, some going away for much more than the three weeks' trip to Iceland which used to be common and going to sea for up to as long as five weeks.
This new state of affairs means that conditions for the fishermen both as to safety and comfort need all the improvement that can be given. I know that trawler owners are trying to do their best in this respect, and I welcome that the new grant covers the safety factor as well as the comfort of the crew. When fishermen are on a voyage up to five weeks away from home, they are often fishing in places where medical help is a great distance away, and it is essential, therefore, that their ships should be as safe as possible and that their comfort on board should equally be secure. I welcome this extra grant, therefore, which may enable owners to make improvements on both counts.
The inshore fisherman is getting into a more and more difficult position because of the cost of his boats. My hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Baker) has made this point on several occasions. It is now almost beyond the purse of a fisherman even to put down a sufficient deposit to get a new fishing boat. In fact, many boats are going to sea which the fishermen would dearly like to replace but which they are financially unable to replace. I echo what my hon. Friend said about the check which is to be kept to see that the grant is not passed on to the builders, who will realise that fishermen can have an easy grant. There should be a check not only from the fisherman's point of view but from the taxpayer's point of view as well.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury, raised the question whether there should be grants to the fishing industry. To that I reply that the Fleck Report looks forward to the industry being independent, and this is still the general aim, but it must not be forgotten that these grants are only comparable to the grants given to an industry which is equipping itself with machinery. These grants of up to 45 per cent. are payable

in development areas on new machinery which is put into factories there, and I see no reason why similar grants should be denied to the fishing industry. We certainly expect treatment equal to that accorded to other industries, and this everyone interested in fishing will do his best to secure. I do not consider that the present grants for new ships and machinery and the safety factors going with them have gone too far, or that this is a subsidy which should be done away with at this time. I cannot accept that at all. So long as industry in general is receiving investment grant, the fishing industry is entitled to its own investment grants for new ships and equipment.
I welcome the modest 5 per cent. increase which is to be given, but I express again my doubt about whether it will be effective enough to induce our owners to build the extra new vessels, which would take up unemployment in the shipyards, and whether it will sufficiently encourage them to modernise those ships which are in need of modernisation.

11.55 a.m.

Mr. David Gibson-Watt: Before coming to my comments on the Bill, I cannot help but draw attention to the empty benches on the Government side of the House during this debate on an important Bill which so many of us on this side have come here to support. There is an hon. Gentleman so far below the Gangway that it is almost impossible to see him, and he came in five minutes ago. The only feature which makes the situation a little better—I congratulate the hon. Gentleman the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) on coming in for a moment—is that the Minister of Agriculture, quite rightly, graced the House in opening the debate with a com-mendably short speech and he has been in once since.
This is an important Bill. If one looks back through the various other Measures, copies of which I have here, it is clear that this Bill is a distillation of many Bills over a number of years. As a final comment on the empty benches opposite, I can only say that those hon. Members on the Government side who have been so keen to bring in the television cameras must now be having second thoughts.

Mr. James Ramsden: My hon. Friend is not doing justice to the


presence of the hon. Member for Woolwich, East, with his well-known interest in Far Eastern waters.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I could not comment on the fishing possibilities there.
The Bill has such wide relevance to the construction and improvement of fishing vessels in general that I must make a few inquiries of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, with particular reference to the importance of fishing to Wales. We have heard some excellent speeches today from Scotland, from the South-West and from the North-West, but it is not generally known—if I do not make a plea on behalf of Wales, no other hon. Member, as far as I can see, will do it—that what Grimsby is to England and Aberdeen is to Scotland, Milford is to Wales. The fishing port of Milford, although it has had its ups and downs, like other ports, is a great fishing port still. I well remember, on the first occasion I went there some years ago, seeing the great ships coming in and delivering their fish at the quayside, the various fish being sorted into tubs to go off on the expresses to so many towns throughout the country.
During the passage of the 1953 Bill, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly), on 20th January, went so far as to criticise the system of support for the industry. Whether he was right is another matter. He said:
Nobody likes subsidies for a dying industry.… the fishing industry subsidy exists only as a prop. We ought to be directing our attention to the permanent solution of the malaise existing in the industry.
At that time the hon. Gentleman described the grant as quite inadequate. Admittedly today the grant is being increased, but the hon. Gentleman went on to say:
The man who is in permanent receipt of the subsidy is slowly but inevitably on his way to the bankruptcy court."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th January, 1953; Vol. 510, c. 76.]
I wish that the hon. Gentleman were here today. I would like to hear what he has to say about the Welsh part of the fishing industry, because I do not believe that all that he said on that occasion was accurate, nor would I like to subscribe to it.
The fact that there have been seven Bills concerned with the fishing industry during the

last ten years might lead people to believe that the fishing industry has had more than its fair share of Parliamentary time, but in view of the importance of the Bill to which we are today giving a Second Reading, and of its wide ramifications, I make no apology for introducing into this House the eighth Bill."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November, 1961; Vol. 649, c. 201.]
Those words were spoken by the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Mr. Christopher Soames, when introducing what became the Sea Fish Industry Act of 1962. This, too, is referred to in the Schedule to the Bill, and it is desired by the promoters of this Measure to repeal Section 3(8) and paragraph 21(2) of Schedule 2 to that Act. I believe I am right in saying that the 1962 Act stemmed from the recommendations of the Fleck Report, and this was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), and by my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg).
Under the Schedule to the 1962 Act, if a vessel was less than 80 ft. long, the grant could not exceed three-tenths of the expenditure, and in any other case one-quarter of the expenditure. I understand that this limit is to be removed, and I am sure that this is right. What will be the upper and lower limits of length in a ship which can attract grant? Others of my hon. Friends have referred to this, but I should like to hear the Government's answer.
Section 1 of the White Fish and Herring Industries Act, 1957, which is also referred to in the Bill before us, stipulates that only ships not exceeding 140 ft. in length can be considered by the White Fish Authority for grant, for either new boats, or boats with engines being changed from coal burning to oil burning, and I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would tell us some more about this.
I mentioned earlier my reasons for making inquiries about this Bill. I said that I was particularly concerned with the problems of sea fishing from Wales. I know that it makes a considerable contribution to our economy. During the Second Reading of the White Fish and Herring Industries Bill in 1957, the then Minister of Agriculture said that the near and middle water sections, the inshore vessels, and the herring catches between them landed fish to the value of between


£20 million and £25 million. I wonder what the figure is now, and what proportion of it comes from Welsh ports.
The right hon. Gentleman said this morning that in 1966 the industry had made its highest catch for 10 years. All that I am asking the hon. Gentleman to do is to translate his right hon. Friend's statement into actual figures so that we can compare them, and answer my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde who asked whether the fishing industry would show an increase in productivity as a result of this grant which we hope the House will give.
I turn now to the Schedule to the Bill which proposes to repeal part of the Industrial Development Act, 1966, namely:
In Section 28, in subsection (1), the words from 'and subsection (8)' onwards, and subsection (2).
That Act was passed only in 1966. I may be wrong about this, and if I am I hope that the Minister will correct me. Why were the provisions limiting the extent of the grant inserted in that Measure? If one looks at the appropriate Section, one sees that those words should never have been inserted there, for surely by that time the Government had decided on their changes in policy? I may be wrong about this, but was not that a mistake in the drafting of the Bill, or did the Government make their change of policy after the Bill was passed?
I come now to the question which affects all Bills concerning grant payment changes. There is always some difficulty over the question of dates. This occurs in the agriculture industry and in other industries which receive grants. In some cases the change of date delays the introduction of a scheme. As I read Clause 1(2), grants paid on expenditure made before 1st January, 1967, are still liable to the limits imposed by the three Measures itemised in the Schedule to the Bill. So far, so good, but subsection (2) goes on to say that
any such scheme made before the commencement of this Act may be varied accordingly and, in particular, so as to provide for increasing the amount of a grant already paid under the scheme beyond the limit previously applicable to that grant.
Surely those two statements are in diametric contradiction one to the other? It seems that one cannot on the one

hand have the dividing date on 1st January, and, at the same time, have a system where, by amending the scheme, the grant can be paid. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, with the advice available to him in his Ministry, can deal with this matter, and I shall be grateful if he will do so.
We learn from the Estimates Committee of 1966–67 that grants on new ships are based upon a 2 to 1 scrapping ratio. This matter has been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and other of my hon. Friends, as well as the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar). I repeat what I said in a short intervention in the hon. Member's speech. The question was put straightforwardly by my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice. Will the Government press on with the review of the ratio? I am prepared to believe that they understand the importance of the matter, but I ask them to press on, so that they produce an answer.
As I said at the beginning, I support the Bill. We all hope that it will help British fishermen. I merely ask two brief questions in conclusion. The Bill asks Parliament to approve grants without a statutory maximum. This is an open-ended commitment. According to the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum
A scheme in pursuance of the Bill which provided for an increase of 5 per cent. in the rates of grant would result in estimated additional expenditure of £350,000 in a full year.
How can the Minister say with any degree of accuracy that a 5 per cent. increase in the rate of grant will result in an estimated additional expenditure of £350,000? How, in all fairness, can the Minister—with whatever advice he has behind him in his Ministry—tell the House that his Ministry has been able to work out this figure? How does the Ministry know what shipowners will ask the Government for what types of grant for what types of ship? How do they know what size the ships will be? I concede that the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum makes a sincere attempt to tell the House what sort of bill may have to be faced, but I cannot see how it can be said that the figure will be £350,000, for the reasons I have adduced.
I wish the Bill a fair wind, but I hope that I have been able to point out a


number of questions which the Minister will be prepared to deal with, for our benefit and for the benefit of the fishing industry.

12.14 p.m.

Sir Frank Pearson: I am grateful for the opportunity of being able to make a brief intervention in an extremely interesting and enlightening debate. One of my hon. Friends pointed out that the question of the white fish and herring industry came before the House on more occasions than many other subjects. I have noticed that whenever it has come before the House it has been dealt with—at any rate by my hon. Friends—with a great deal of knowledge and interest.
This morning's debate has been no exception. We have had speeches from Members representing what we might term maritime constituencies—from Scotland, Wales and the West Country—

Mr. Michael Alison: And Yorkshire.

Sir Frank Pearson: And Yorkshire. They have expressed views which ought to be of the greatest assistance to the Minister in his consideration of this question.

Mr. Paul Hawkins (Norfolk Southwest): I hope that my hon. Friend will bear in mind when mentioning the various constituencies interested in this question that Norfolk has a very long coastline but that no Member representing a Norfolk constituency has yet been called.

Sir Frank Pearson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having mentioned that point. I had always connected the great county of Norfolk much more with the production of beef than brill. I have no doubt that Norfolk also has a vital interest in this matter.
Most of the contributions made in the debate so far have come from representatives of constituencies with a direct interest in the catching of fish and in the livelihood of that grand body of men, the inshore fishermen. I therefore apologise for intervening as a representative of a constituency that, by no stretch of the imagination, can claim any direct interest in inshore fishing. [Laughter.] It is all very well for hon. Members to laugh. They should not forget that whether a

constituency is situated on the coast or bang in the middle of the country its constituents are eaters of fish, and to that extent they are concerned in the matters that we are discussing.
I always like to have precedents for my incursions into debates. It may not be altogether clear to the uninitiated why I am now intervening. My mind goes back to a certain night in 1961, when my hon. Friends and I were on the other side of the House and hon. Members opposite were on this side. The occupant of a seat in, I believe, the third row below the Gangway made a remarkable contribution to the debate. I believe that it was the present Joint Under-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, the hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever).

Mr. G. Campbell: I have already referred to that speech. I am glad that my hon. Friend is referring to it again.

Sir Frank Pearson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I welcome the opportunity of slightly enlarging upon what he said.

Mr. Peter Mills: I should like my hon. Friend to quote the whole of that speech so that I fully understand it. I was completely at a loss to understand what my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) was talking about in his reference to that speech in his intervention.

Sir Frank Pearson: It is an interesting suggestion, but time is getting on and I do not want to waste it. I shall not go right through the speech, but I want to draw attention to the opening paragraph, which has a great bearing on my present intervention. The hon. Member said:
It is with some diffidence that I rise to speak on this subject.
Hon. Members intervened with the question, "Why?", and the hon. Member went on
because there are no notorious fishing grounds in my own constituency. There is, of course, the Manchester Ship Canal …"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th February, 1961; Vol. 634, c. 1095.]
That remark caused great hilarity at the time, but it reinforces my point that wherever a constituency may be it has an interest in the white fish and herring


industry. It is right that one should briefly put one's views.
I remember the debate on the original Act. I have rarely read a Bill so short as the present one, so clear or so succinct, which makes absolutely certain that all hon. Members entirely understand what we are doing. Nevertheless, although it raises the limit, it is worth while considering the initial basis of these grants. Clause 1(1,a) of the original Act said that certain grants may be made in aid for expenditure incurred
in the acquisition of new fishing vessels not exceeding one hundred and forty feet in length;
This limit on length worries me, because I am not sure of its basis.
I read through one or two of the previous debates and understand that, when the original Act of 1953 came forward, many inshore fishing boats were about 74 ft. long. As the years have gone by, so the economic size of vessels has increased. Are we absolutely certain that, 13 years after the passing of that Act, techniques have not so altered and designs been so modernised that the original limit of 140 ft. is now out of date?
It is easy, when the Minister is amending ing an Act and concentrating on the limits of the grants, to lose sight of these other, perhaps minor, but still important points which can have such an effect on the industry. I hope that this will be considered—

Mr. Ramsden: What my hon. Friend says has great relevance. I believe that the Russians operate their long-distance trawlers with a parent ship fulfilling such functions as freezing the catch and that they are considered, in quarters more knowledgeable than I am, to be far ahead of us in technological methods. If we go on to the same sort of system, will this larger ship, the parent ship, qualify for this type of grant?

Sir Frank Pearson: That is extremely important. There is no doubt that all the techniques of fishing are altering so rapidly that no one can say that one boat on its own will be the pattern for the whole industry. I hope that the specifications of vessels which attract grants will be considered.
Clause 2(1,a) of the 1953 Act placed a limitation on grants paid for expenditure incurred in acquiring a vessel, saying that it should not exceed the following amount:
where the said expenditure does not exceed twenty thousand pounds and the grant is made to an individual who satisfies the Authority that he is or is to be a working owner of the vessel, three-tenths of the said expenditure or five thousand pounds, whichever is the less;".
Once the grants are raised substantially, should not that lower limit be raised proportionately? This is eminently reasonable, but the Act does not cater for it. I hope, however, that the Minister will not lose sight of this point.
We have been discussing white fish, and there is no more pleasant subject. I am extremely fond of turbot, halibut and cod. My hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) mentioned tunny and sardines, which I had never realised were white fish, so we have learned something this morning. But we are also dealing with herrings. As the hon. Member for Cheetham pointed out in his magnificent speech, the herring is probably an even more important commodity than white fish. It is highly nutritious, with a very large percentage of oil and is a valuable food. We should be wrong not to give as much consideration to herrings as we have been giving to white fish.
The limit in the Clause 2(1,a) of the original Act applied to a person.
… who satisfies the Authority that he is or is to be a working owner of the vessel.
It is important that the grant for white fish should be paid only to working owners. That is a strict limitation, yet on herrings—

Mr. Dewar: The whole House must appreciate the hon. Gentleman's great concern for the white fish industry, but would he not agree that, if he does not soon conclude, we will not get this Bill through at all today, as only another three minutes are left?

Sir Frank Pearson: I quite agree, but, in considering the Minister of Agriculture's handling of these affairs, my mind goes back to the passage of the Agriculture Bill, when we were told time after time that it was of the greatest urgency that the Bill should go through. I and my hon. Friends hurried through debates and curtailed our speeches and


did everything in our power to ensure the Bill's passage. And what happened? It took 2½ years of Government time to go through. So my reply to hon. Gentlemen opposite who talk about urgency is that, until the Government can arrange their business properly, they must expect extensive debates. No hon. Members opposite wish to come to these debates. On this side, the benches are full and it is only right that we should debate this matter fully—

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that his Front Bench agree with him that arrangements should be made to get business through more quickly? We have the majority in the House to do that, if that is the position.

Sir Frank Pearson: Being in the happy position of a back bencher, I have had no consultation with my Front Bench at all—

Mr. Mackie: I thought that that was the case.

Sir Frank Pearson: The hon. Gentleman always has great perspicacity.

Mr. Wall: Would my hon. Friend not agree that, as this legislation is retrospective to 1st January this year, the immediate requirement of speed does not seem to arise?

Sir Frank Pearson: That is a very valid point. Governments which dabble in retrospective legislation must pay the price, which is that a subject will be debated in extenso. This is absolutely right—

Mr. G. Campbell: My hon. Friend began by pointing out that he was speaking for a constituency which did not have fishing fleets and quoted from the speech of the hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever), who is now a Member of the Government. Can he assure us that he will not speak as long as the hon. Member, who took, I believe, nearly two hours in the early morning?

Sir Frank Pearson: I think that he took 1½ hours and ended at 2·30 in the morning this been a short and unsatisfactory debate, but no doubt

there will be another opportunity to carry it on, and I give an assurance that at that time I will not go on as long as the hon. Member for Cheetham did on that occasion. I hope that this is some consolation to the Minister.
I want to get back to the question of the different ways in which the herring industry is treated. Under Section—

It being half-past Twelve o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

ROYAL NAVAL COLLEGE, GREENWICH

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Charles R. Morris.]

12.30 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: I wish to ask for an explanation from the Minister of Defence for Administration of the decision of his Secretary of State to site the proposed new Royal Defence College at Shriven-ham and not at Greenwich. This is an extraordinary story and I hope that we shall have from the Minister, for the first time, a full and frank explanation of the Secretary of State's decision.
Let me make clear that I, I think like most people, regard the proposal to establish the Royal Defence College as an excellent one. This was put forward by an independent committee of inquiry into the Service colleges set up by the Secretary of State and including two very distinguished members, Professor Michael Howard and Mr. Cyril English. The idea strikes me as excellent. It is that officer cadets of the three Services should begin with a short period at Dartmouth, Sandhurst and Cranwell and follow with a period of service with the Fleet, with their units, or in flying training. Then all of them should go to this proposed new tri-Services Royal Defence College for a one-year course of academic and technical studies in the application of scientific weapons, systems, in international affairs and the history of war, and in foreign languages.
The Committee made an exhaustive and thorough study of what site there should be for this Royal Defence College and came down plainly on the side of the


Royal Naval College at Greenwich and against the site being at Shrivenham. This was argued at length in paragraphs 95 to 98 of the Committee's Report. The Committee's recommendation was supported by the Minister's Service advisers, including the chiefs of staff, and, up to the last moment, it seemed to all concerned that this recommendation of the Committee, like the others, would be accepted.
I want to ask three questions of my hon. Friend. Why was this recommendation turned down by the Secretary of State? Why does the Secretary of State now refuse on security grounds to give his reasons? Why does he refuse to publish the Report of his independent Committee?
I start with six reasons for preferring Greenwich as a site to Shrivenham. First on the question of costs. As the Committee pointed out, the capital cost of going to Shrivenham would be at least £1 million greater than if the site of the Royal Naval College were used. At Shrivenham we would have to build the whole thing from the start, including married quarters and administrative buildings. We have been assured by the Government spokesman in the Lords that the new buildings will be worthy of their task. It seems that £1 million is an underestimate. I understand that no estimate has been made of the current costs, but I think the difference would be wholly marginal.
The second reason is that of timing. If Greenwich were chosen the Royal Defence College could begin in 1969 and be in full operation by 1972. If it is at Shrivenham everything would have to be built anew and the Committee estimated that the Royal Defence College would come into operation at least two years later. The third reason is that of accessibility. As the Committee points out, the closeness to London of the Royal Naval College site would make it extremely attractive to staff and outside lecturers. It would also enable the College to get domestic and industrial staff which is extremely doubtful as a possibility in Shrivenham.
The fourth reason is the excellent opportunities for expansion and development at Greenwich. It was originally

hinted that this was a reason against Greenwich, but I think the Government have dropped that idea now. Possibly they raised the objection before contacting Greenwich Borough Council and before seeing the letter which the borough council wrote to the Secretary of State dealing with this point. That letter said:
Plans are in the course of preparation for the complete redevelopment of the Greenwich Town Centre in the vicinity of the former civic buildings at Royal Hill and in close proximity to the present Naval College. Now that there are good prospects of an early decision being given on the line of the proposed by-pass road, which would carry through traffic away from the Naval College and the existing shopping centre, this opens up exciting possibilities for the redevelopment of a Services Precinct as part of the local development plan for this particular part of the borough.
The letter went on to say:
it is felt that there remain immense possibilities for the further and more intensive development and use of the former Royal Military Academy, the Royal Herbert Hospital and other adjacent areas of military land where, if it be considered desirable, opportunities exist to establish both the new Royal Defence College and the proposed Royal Defence Academy in close proximity.
On the subject of expansion objected to on the Greenwich site by the Government, I quote the Minister. Three years ago he wrote a memorandum for the Select Committee on Expenditure and he suggested that the
university could expand to absorb a student population of about 1,000 (500 residential) within three years in the existing buildings and eventually to 5,000 with the erection of additional buildings on Crown and other land within two miles of the College.
Of course he was right. We are dealing with only 700, so the possibility of expansion on this site on the Minister's own account is very good indeed.
The fifth reason for choosing Greenwich is the links with the borough. There is a magnificent tradition in Woolwich and Greenwich of partnership and friendship between civilians and Servicemen. This has been expressed in the relations between the borough and the Royal Naval College with the old Woolwich Arsenal and the old Royal Military Academy, which of course was once the Sandhurst, and with the Royal Artillery Barracks and a number of other Service institutions in the borough.
Only in May of last year in a most picturesque ceremony in the presence of Prince Philip the freedom of the borough


was conferred on the Royal Naval College at Greenwich. As a small curtain-raiser, rather earlier I as President of the College had the honour of entertaining the mayor and council and many distinguished local residents in the Painted Hall of the Royal Naval College. It seems extraordinary that the Minister of Defence, who spends great sums of money on public relations, should brush aside these well-established links between the Services and civilians in my area. To break this link so abruptly by this decision without informing, let alone consulting, Greenwich Borough Council, was an act of serious discourtesy.
The sixth reason I put forward is the Services' link with the magnificent buildings of the Royal Naval College, a link which dates back to 1694 when the buildings were converted to use as a naval hospital. Sentiment and tradition can hold back the Armed Services from necessary reforms, but they can also foster the loyalty, discipline and courage without which those Services are useless. I sometimes wish that there was more understanding in the Government of how Servicemen think and feel. I should like to see warning notices in red letters on every computer in the Ministry of Defence saying, "Computers cannot create courage."
Why do the Government reject this? I ask the Minister to be frank with the House. Is it that the Government want everything at Shrivenham? Have they a conception of moving, say, the Royal Naval Engineering College, Manadon, to Shrivenham and of centralising everything there? I cannot believe this, first because the Government are spending hundreds of thousands of £'s on building up Manadon at present. They are to spend £300,000 on moving the nuclear department from Greenwich to Manadon. I cannot believe that the Government's long-term plan involves moving Manadon or building up a single centralised university. However, if this is the Government's plan, let them say so. If they have made up their minds, this might be a factor, but I do not believe that"they have. This is a vague and very improbable dream many years or decades ahead.
What is the reason? The latest official statement on the subject was given in another place a few days ago. It was

to the effect that the Government refuse to give their reasons on security grounds. I will quote what the Government's spokesman, Lord Winterbottom, said:
I think that with his experience he must realise that all the reasons for the decisions of a Department such as the Ministry of Defence cannot be made public. It is true that my noble friends want to give the House as much information as they can. They want to give more of the facts; but all of the facts—no. I say with regret that I cannot confirm precisely what led up to the Government's decision on the location of the combined Colleges or what Professor Howard and Mr. English actually said.".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 27th April, 1967; Vol. 282, c. 679–89.]
This is indeed very strange. What deadly secrets are these which the Government must hide from the House, from former Navy Ministers like Lord Jellicoe and myself, and from their own advisers, because at least one or two of the Government's highest advisers have no idea what the secret reasons are which the Government refer to.
We wait with great curiosity and interest to hear what the Minister of Defence will tell us. I must tell him frankly that I do not believe that there are any secrets. I have read from beginning to end the Report which my hon. Friend refuses to publish. From its first page to the last page there is nothing whatever secret in it. There is no reason whatever why it should not be published.
On the contrary, it should be published, because there are a number of people in education and educational administration who need to know and who need to read it. What are these secrets? I do not believe that they exist. I think that this talk of secrecy is a piece of mystification to cover up a first-class bureaucratic blunder. The choice of Greenwich as a site is supported on both sides of the House, by the Government's own independent Committee, and by the Government's own advisers.
To sum up, the Secretary of State's decision involves the flagrant waste of £1 million of public money, a two-year delay in starting the Royal Defence College, inferior buildings on an inferior site, discourtesy to the local borough, and an arrogant disregard of Service psychology.

12.43 p.m.

Mr. Humphrey Atkins: I intervene briefly to make it clear to the Minister of Defence that we


on these benches are just as worried as the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) about the Government's decision on Greenwich. I wish to make it clear that this is not a personal feeling of the hon. Gentleman's, but that he has considerable support, particularly on these benches. The hon. Gentleman argued a powerful case for the retention of Greenwich. I shall not attempt to add to it.
I must tell the Minister of Defence that we are far from satisfied with the explanations which he has so far given for this decision, which, for all the reasons which were advanced by the hon. Member for Woolwich, East, seem to us to be quite extraordinary. All the information that we have and can lay our hands on appears to indicate that the proper decision, and the only realistic one, would be to retain Greenwich as the site of the new Defence College. Yet for some reason of which the House has so far not been given any indication the Government have come to the opposite conclusion.
We are waiting with great interest to hear what the Minister of Defence tells us today in justification of his decision, because from what we have heard so far we believe that the Minister can only be condemned for coming to a decision which is against all the evidence and against all reason. We therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to reassure us that there are some reasons for this decision which the House can accept, because the House cannot accept the reasons which the hon. Gentleman has advanced so far.

12.45 p.m.

The Minister of Defence for Administration (Mr. G. W. Reynolds): A Minister is usually criticised from behind the Treasury Bench and from the other side of the House for acting differently in government from what he advocated when in opposition. However, neither my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) nor the hon. Member for Merton and Morden (Mr. Humphrey Atkins, tried to do that today. The position I have adopted in debates we have held on Greenwich over the last few years is well known.
However, I must point out to my hon. Friend that during the period when he

was Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy he agreed to the Naval Staff College moving out of Greenwich and going to Minley Manor near Hartley Wintney. My hon. Friend also agreed to a review of the position of the Naval War College at Greenwich to see what its future should be, or whether it should have any future at all. He agreed to these two things. This was a decision to remove one-third of the students from Greenwich to another establishment altogether. He also agreed to an inquiry which he knew full well could lead to the closing down of facilities for another one-quarter of the students at Greenwich.
It is a little unusual that my hon. Friend, having to an extent written off the Royal Naval College at Greenwich, without, to the best of my knowledge, any consultation with the London Borough of Greenwich, and without having informed the London Borough of Greenwich, should then attack my right hon. Friend and me for a decision which I see as logically following on from the decisions which my hon. Friend took when he was in a position to take decisions of that nature as Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy.

Mr. Mayhew: Nothing that I said and nothing in my present attitude suggests that there should be no changes at Greenwich. I am not challenging the Government's view about the future of the naval element in the Royal Naval College. My case is quite different and I have explained it. This is the ideal site for the future Royal Defence College. I am not taking a single Service view. Nor am I standing for the status quo.

Mr. Reynolds: My hon. Friend raised six points to show that Greenwich is the ideal site for the Royal Defence College. I will go through these six points and deal with each of them. My hon. Friend argued, before coming on to the six points, that the Howard-English Report, paragraphs 95–98—my hon. Friend said that he had read the entire Report—came down in favour of Greenwich. My hon. Friend did not refer to that part of paragraph 95, which he tells us that he has in fact read, which pointed out that there were two alternatives—Greenwich and Shrivenham. My hon. Friend did not refer to a passage a little later in the Report, which he says that he has read


in full, which makes it clear that Professor Howard and Mr. English think that Shrivenham, if one is going to go in for the long-term objective of centralisation of technical and other officer training, is the site which has the facilities for expansion to that end.
I want to put that matter straight. The Report recommended that the Royal Defence College should go to Greenwich, but it admitted that there was an argument in favour of Greenwich and that there was an argument in favour of Shrivenham.
My right hon. Friend and myself, on looking at the matter, eventually came to the conclusion, after considering all the arguments, that from a long term point of view, to leave other possible future options open to us, it was advisable to go to Shrivenham rather than to commit ourselves to the confines of the present Royal Naval Academy at Greenwich.
My hon. Friend made a great deal of play on the question of cost. I admit straight away, and I have already admitted in the House, that it is more expensive initially to develop facilities at Shrivenham for the Royal Defence College than to convert facilities at Greenwich for the Royal Defence College. That is in terms of capital expenditure to get the necessary teaching, living and other accommodation there.
On the other hand, looking at the actual running costs, the additional capital expenditure which will be necessary at Shrivenham can be amortised over a period of ten years, because our costs of operating at Shrivenham will be lower than the costs of operating at Greenwich. This is fairly obvious, because there would be two establishments together there, with a sharing of overheads, and a reduction in the number of staff required, as well as its being rather cheaper to do something of this sort outside London than in the London area.
The extra capital cost can be amortised over about 10 years, so the fact that extra capital cost will be required at Shrivenham is not something which weighs heavily against the decision to have this facility there rather than at Greenwich. In general commercial or industrial life, if one could completely amortise capital expenditure over 10 years, this would not be a factor likely

to be regarded unfavourably by someone wishing to carry out capital works which had the advantage of leaving other options open for the future if it should at some later stage be decided to take them up.
On the question of timing, my hon. Friend maintained that there would be two years' additional delay as a result of going to Shrivenham instead of moving into the facilities existing at Greenwich. I do not accept that this is likely. The Royal Naval Staff College is not scheduled to move to Minley Manor until 1970–71—some time in that period—and one would find it very difficult to make a start on the Royal Defence College at Greenwich until the Royal Naval Staff College had gone. Moreover, my hon. Friend will know that, as these things go, there will probably have to be a gap between the two moves in order that work of one kind and another can be done. We believe that we can start the Defence College at Shrivenham by 1970. I do not accept that it would be possible to start it at Greenwich in 1968, which is virtually what my hon. Friend is arguing—

Mr. Mayhew: 1969.

Mr. Reynolds: 1969—that at once brings us down to only one year as the difference between the two sites. I am sure that we would not gain that difference. It has already been announced that we hope to start in 1970 at Shrivenham and have the College fully functioning by 1972. I believe, therefore, that, on the question of timing, our decision is correct. This is not a project which one can suddenly start. One has to start from the Sandhurst, Dartmouth and Cranwell end, when people will be going to the Royal Defence College a little later on in their Service careers after, as my hon. Friend said, in most cases—certainly in the Army and the Navy—a period of regimental service and shortened courses compared with those at present given at Sandhurst and Dartmouth.
Next, the question of accessibility at Shrivenham as compared with Greenwich. The Howard-English Report, which my hon. Friend says he has read, pointed out that Shrivenham was very accessible to certain useful towns from the point of view of provision of university-type


education. Shrivenham is no great distance from Oxford or Bath, where one can have contacts with one ancient university and one rather newer one. I hope that, by the time we move down there, or a very short time afterwards, there will be a motorway, the M4, running from West London to within about four miles, geographically, of the concentration at Shrivenham.
My hon. Friend referred to the employment of domestic staff. I inquired specifically about this when I was at Shrivenham recently, and, to the best of my knowledge, there is no suggestion of difficulty in obtaining domestic or other staff at Shrivenham. Indeed, I think that it may well be easier than at. Greenwich at present. So far as I have been able to ascertain, there will be no particular problem in getting domestic staff at Shrivenham to carry out the work which we shall want done there.
Another argument which is sometimes raised—I do not think that my hon. Friend mentioned it—is founded on the difficulty of getting lecturers, particularly special lecturers, to travel to a place like Shrivenham as compared with travelling to Greenwich. Here again, special lecturers work at Shrivenham now, and I have not received any complaints from the staff there about difficulty in getting them at present. Admittedly, it is rather further away than Greenwich, but I do not think that the difficulties of getting lecturers will be multiplied in any sort of ratio related to the distance between Greenwich and the centre of London as compared with Shrivenham in Wiltshire. It is not a difficulty which Shrivenham faces at present, and I see no reason why it should be a difficulty when the Royal Defence College is there.
My hon. Friend has said that there are facilities for expansion at Greenwich, and he referred to a letter which the clerk of the London Borough of Greenwich sent to my right hon. Friend, pointing out that there are certain areas on which expansion could take place in close proximity to the present college. They are, of course, in close proximity to the college, anything up to two miles away, as I think the letter itself says. At Shrivenham, on the other hand, it is not a question of close proximity. The

facilities for expansion are on the site. There is no question of having to travel any distance. However, I make no great point of that. The point I make strongly in this connection—it was made in a letter from my right hon. Friend to my hon. Friend on 5th April—is that, although no one denies that there is room at Greenwich for the Royal Defence College at present, or room could easily be made available—this is obvious—by going to Shrivenham we shall put ourselves on a site which, if at some future stage it is decided to concentrate all the technical training of officers and education at university or similar level on one site, the opportunity will be there to do so, whereas at Greenwich it could not conveniently be done for the way in which a Service university would have to be run.
My hon. Friend quoted the memorandum which I submitted to the Estimates Committee, but I was there talking about a civil university. My hon. Friend will realise that such a university is run very differently from a Service educational establishment which has to provide married quarters for senior officers and many other facilities of that kind. We believe quite firmly that, if we decided to have the Royal Defence College at Greenwich, although there would obviously be room for it with its 700 students, we should not be in a position which would enable us, if it should at some time in the future be so decided—and this is one of the concepts which Howard-English looked towards—to concentrate there the facilities at present available at Manadon, Shrivenham, and Cranwell; but we should be able to do it at Shrivenham. Only by deciding to put the college at Shrivenham do we leave the options open for the future so that if, by rundown of the Forces or changes in the system, it was decided to concentrate all the facilities in one place, we could do it at Shrivenham. At Greenwich, it could not be done.
My hon. Friend referred to the links with the borough of Greenwich and the value of those links both to the College and the borough itself. I know, as he said, that the new borough recently gave its Freedom to the College. I am sure that the Navy, the Admiral-President and everyone at the College values the links with the borough, as does the Ministry


of Defence. However, my hon. Friend is going a bit too far, and the borough itself expects a little too much, in thinking that we must consult the local authority on such a matter as the establishment and siting of the Royal Defence College.
Obviously, the borough has an interest in the use to which Greenwich is put. As has been announced in the House by my right hon. Friend, I am at present considering the future use of the actual physical facilities at Greenwich. We shall bear in mind the interests of the borough in the review which is going on, in considering what the future use of those facilities should be. But I cannot accept, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will not, on reflection, accept, that it is incumbent upon us to consult the local authority about the use of these buildings however strong the links may be, apart from questions of planning and matters of that kind. I hope to be able in the not far distant future to be able to give some information about our views on the future use of the buildings at Greenwich.
As his last point, my hon. Friend referred to the traditions of Greenwich, which, he said, ought not to be destroyed or upset. These traditions are valuable— I fully accept that—and in many respects are necessary in the Armed Forces. I have this point well in mind in relation to Greenwich and the question of the use of the physical facilities and buildings there. I think that the attachment of the Royal Navy to Greenwich is more to Greenwich as a place with a long and historic naval tradition rather than to the College that is actually housed in the buildings standing on that beautiful site at the side of the river. I feel that it is not so much the college but Greenwich itself which has the traditional naval background, a place to which many Navy personnel look as one of the Navy's homes, perhaps, along with Portsmouth and other naval dockyards.
As I say, I shall be looking into the use of the physical facilities at Greenwich which are in the possession of the Ministry of Public Building and Works and the Ministry of Defence. I do not think that it necessarily follows, if we are able to do anything in this connection, that it will have to be solely a naval presence at Greenwich, although I am sure that the Navy would wish to see the White Ensign flying above that piece of land by the River Thames for many years. I can make no promise in this respect at the moment. We are looking at the question, and I assure my hon. Friend that we shall have this tradition well in mind in reviewing the use to which the facilities at Greenwich should be put.
To sum up, we looked at all aspects of this question and we came to the conclusion, having considered the two sites mentioned by Howard-English, that, in order to leave the option open for the possible future concentration of technical and academic training at degree level for officers, we should site the college at Shrivenham rather than at Greenwich. There is the other advantage that we shall be doing what one might call the academic and technical work on one campus in one university. I am absolutely convinced that we are right in this decision, although I realise that a large number of hon. Members have strong feelings on the matter. In all the circumstances, Shrivenham, with its many advantages, and its substantial facilities and potential for expansion, offers the right solution for the siting of the Royal Defence College. On the other matter, I am at present looking into the question of the future of the buildings at Greenwich and will let the House know my conclusions as soon as possible.

The debate having been concluded, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER suspended the sitting till half-past Two o'clock pursuant to Order.

Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

UNIVERSITY OF ASTON IN BIRMINGHAM BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Food Labelling

Mr. Longden: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further progress has been made with implementing the proposals issued in September 1964 for the better labelling of food.

Mrs. Joyce Butler: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to issue comprehensive new food labelling regulations; and if he will make a statement.

The Joint Parliament Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): Good progress is being made, but I cannot add further to the reply given to the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Longden) on 15th February, 1967.—[Vol. 741, c. 606–7.]

Mr. Longden: That is very disappointing, because it is now 2½ years since the report was made. Is there any reason why manufacturers should not be required to label their products accurately and completely? If the Government have no proposals, will they facilitate the Private Member's Bill of the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler)?

Mr. Hoy: I answered that on the last occasion. When considering these regulations there are a tremendous number of people to consult. I told the hon. Member on the last occasion that we had to send out 7,000 circulars in connection with this and had 300 representations after that.

Mr. Rankin: Would my hon. Friend read the story in today's Press about the

sad fate of 2,000 chickens and the horrible way in which they were destroyed and see what he can do to get better food for labelling?

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a Question about labelling.

Pesticides (DDT)

Mr. Longden: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, in view of the recommendation in the report of the advisory committee on poisonous substances used in agriculture and food storage in February, 1964 that the use of DDT should be reviewed after three years, he has any statement to make.

Mr. Hoy: The Advisory Committee on Pesticides and other Toxic Chemicals recently started to review the use in Great Britain of DDT and certain other persistent organo-chlorine pesticides.

Mr. Longden: Better late than never, because it is now several years since the then Government informed me that it was causing inquiry to be made into the effect on the ecology of the countryside of these chemicals. Can the matter be speeded up?

Mr. Hoy: I am grateful that at least I have been able to announce that it is being done. We cannot speed it up too quickly. The Committee which investigates this must go into the matter very carefully to consider all the aspects.

Milk Production

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the increase in milk production in 1967–68, as a result of the Price Review determination.

Mr. More: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the average producer price in 1967–68, after taking into account the increase in milk production to be achieved under the selective expansion programme.

Mr. Hoy: It is not possible to make a firm estimate of milk production in 1967–68, but present indications are that there will be some increase over last year. If production increased by, say, 40 million gallons the average net producer price would be about 3s. 4d.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: In view of the number of milk producers that have gone out in the past year, is the Minister really satisfied that the Price Review award will achieve the aim he has outlined? Does he realise that recent imports of dumped dairy produce have done a lot to sap the confidence of producers?

Mr. Hoy: I think that we gave a considerable injection at the last Price Review. That was its purpose. While it may be true that numbers of producers may be going out—and they have been doing so for a considerable number of years—the hon. Member will be as delighted as I am to know that the herd is just about the same.

Eggs

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, as the present import of eggs from Europe amounts to 8 million eggs each week, he will now have further consultations with the Egg Marketing Board with a view to removing his ban on the export of eggs to Europe.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): No, Sir. As the Board is aware, the Government of the day gave an undertaking to Denmark and the Netherlands in 1957 that we would not export subsidised eggs to their traditional export markets.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Is the Minister having any consultations with these Governments to see whether these undertakings can be varied in view of the enormous increase in eggs which has taken place in this country and as we appear to be the only country in Europe which does not permit the export of eggs?

Mr. Peart: The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's Question is "No". The answer to the second part is, as I have said, that we have traditional arrangements and they are mere.

Mr. Godber: Is the right hon. Gentleman closely in touch with the President of the Board of Trade on the claim that has been put in to ban certain imports of eggs from Poland?

Mr. Peart: The claim has been put in. Obviously, this is being considered and I am unable to comment at this stage.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Why import all these millions of eggs when we are already told that we are over-producing eggs in this country? How can poultry farmers make a fair living under these conditions?

Mr. Peart: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman reads the Question, he will see that it is directed to exports to Europe.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the weekly cost of the import of foreign eggs; and what steps he now intends to take to reduce this figure.

Mr. Peart: The average weekly cost of shell egg imports during January, February and March 1967, as shown in the Overseas Trade Accounts is about £72,000. I do not consider that a case has been made out for any change in our policy on imports.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it does not make sense for him to refuse to reconsider export agreements on the ground that a traditional market of other countries is concerned when he is making this country a traditional market of Polish eggs?

Mr. Peart: One cannot argue like that. We have to try to make the right balance in our commercial relationships. In reply to an earlier supplementary question, I said that the Conservative Party strongly pursued this policy. If it has a drastic effect on our own position, I am prepared to look at it.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Would the Minister answer the Question, which he seems to have been dodging all afternoon? Why not stop the importation of millions of eggs when our home producers find it so hard to make a living?

Mr. Peart: I am not dodging the question. Why should I be afraid of an hon. Member's Question? I have given the precise figure of £72,000. We allow imports to come in. It has never been the policy of any Government to stop imports coming in.

Mr. Stodart: If the existence of a tariff wall around Europe, a wall which is getting higher as the years go past, is not a new factor which would cause the right hon. Gentleman to change his possibly


traditional import policy, can he give an indication of what might induce him to change his policy?

Mr. Peart: As I have said, if there were terrific damage to our home production, I would look at it. There is an application about egg dumping which will be examined. I cannot go beyond that.

Farmers (Capital)

Mr. Loveys: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give an estimate of the additional capital in farmers' hands as a result of the Price Review.

Mr. Peart: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 25th April to the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling).—[Vol. 745, c. 274.]

Mr. Loveys: Did not the Minister originally say that the Price Review was worth £40 million? Since then, in the Question to which he referred, he said that no precise estimate is possible regarding capital injection. Will he not now retract the figure of £40 million, which included the so-called and doubtful efficiency factor and ignored the question of taxation and inflation which greatly reduce the net figure available for capital injection?

Mr. Peart: As the hon. Member knows, in my Price Review I mentioned the £30 million to which he has referred, which was agreed with the producers. As the hon. Member knows full well, the Annual Review award was not intended to be the main source of farmers' capital. Inevitably, they must rely on the banks. These are the facts of life. The Review award was very good and was welcomed.

Mr. Hawkins: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he made at his Review of the improvement in income of arable farmers in 1967–68.

Mr. Stodart: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the effect of the recent Price Review on the incomes of arable farmers.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): No estimate can yet be made because the incomes of

arable farmers depend on many other factors besides the Review award.

Mr. Hawkins: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the income of arable farmers, at any rate in East Anglia, has fallen? Fertiliser and labour costs have risen while ploughing-up grants have been reduced and are only balanced by a 2s. 6d. increase for sugar beet.

Mr. Mackie: The Question on the Order Paper was what estimate my right hon. Friend had made
… at his Review of the improvement in income of arable farmers …".
As the hon. Gentleman knows—he is a countryman himself—all sorts of factors affect the income of arable farmers. He comes from a potato-growing district. I remind him that this season the price of potatoes increased so much that potato-farmers gained £20 million more—far more than they got out of almost every Conservative Price Review.

Mr. Stodart: With the hon. Gentleman's experience of arable farming and his addiction to keeping books, will he chance his arm and say that it is almost certain that, because of the inescapable factors of increases in fertiliser prices the cut in subsidy and increased labour costs, the income of arable farmers is almost bound to go down?

Mr. Mackie: I will chance my arm and say "No".

Mr. Hawkins: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied with the level of capital investment by farmers; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peart: The level of capital investment is a matter for individual farmers to decide in the light of their own particular circumstances. The Annual Review White Paper (Cmnd. 3229) drew attention to the sectors where further investment is needed and the award provides the industry with capital resources to finance expansion, particularly on the livestock side.

Mr. Hawkins: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered expansion in the arable districts which produce an immense amount of food? Is he aware that tractor and fertiliser sales have been


going down? Surely this must mean that arable farmers are investing less?

Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned a specific factor and it is true that the deliveries of machinery to the home market fell off in the second half of List year. But demand has now picked up again. I hope that he will not be so gloomy.

Beef Calves

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the increase in supplies of beef calves from the dairy herd as a result of the Price Review determination.

Mr. Hoy: The selective expansion programme does not lay down a precise target for the contribution of the dairy herd to beef expansion and no such estimate has been attempted. But the recent awards on milk, beef and calf subsidy provide the incentive to meet the general objective.

Mr. Irvine: Is the Minister aware that a moment ago he said that there would be some increase in the milk production of this country? Is he also aware that if he is to achieve the target of the selective expansion programme he will require at least 125,000 more cows, which would produce about 100 million gallons more milk? What will be the effect of that on the price, if it is achieved, which nobody expects it to be?

Mr. Hoy: I said that we expected some increase but that we had no estimate. Another figure was then used to correlate the increase with what happened to price. We gave an assurance, which was welcomed at the Review by milk farmers, that if this caused any fall in price we would be bound to take that into consideration at future Reviews. That assurance was given by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Godber: Surely the Parliamentary Secretary will appreciate that the selective expansion programme called for an increase in the production of beef to the maximum of technical possibilities? Does not that mean, therefore, that there must be a massive increase in the number of calves in the dairy herd? If that is to be achieved what the hon. Gentleman has

told us does not match up to the National Plan.

Mr. Hoy: I thought that we had made it perfectly clear. We have given these three forms of subsidy; and said that, if from the technical point of view the increase turned out as anticipated, then the effect on milk price would be taken into consideration. We did not lay down a figure because it was for the farmers to do that. The farmers' unions made a forecast of what the figure would be by 1970, and we hope that this will be achieved.

Small Poultry-Keepers

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy towards the smaller poultry-keeper.

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further plans he has to assist small producers of eggs.

Mr. Peart: The egg guarantee arrangements are designed to safeguard the position of egg producers generally. The smaller producer is not necessarily at a disadvantage in competing with the larger enterprises, and I am not considering further special assistance.

Mr. Irvine: Will the Minister talk to a few small producers? All those in my constituency are filled with gloom. They think that he is more interested in the income of Danish and Polish small poultry producers than he is in them.

Mr. Peart: The hon. Member is fully aware that I probably address more farmers' meetings than many hon. Members, and inevitably from time to time the views of small producers are conveyed to me. He will also be aware that a scheme which we agreed with the Egg Board was designed to help the small producers. I am generally under attack for being too prejudiced towards the small producers.

Mr. Dance: Will the Minister make representations to the President of the Board of Trade to take immediate action to stop the dumping of Polish eggs?

Mr. Peart: As I replied to the hon. Member's right hon. Friend, the submission has gone to the Board of Trade.


My right hon. Friend will be examining it, and I cannot say more than that. [Interruption.] Of course, he will do it quickly. He always acts quickly.

Mr. Peter Mills: The Minister's reply is most unsatisfactory. Surely he has some concrete plans to deal with the problem of the small poultry farmer, such as the extension of co-operative schemes? Will he not allow this problem just to go on drifting?

Mr. Peart: The hon. Member should know that my Bill, which he did not oppose, but welcomed with reservations, and many other matters are designed to stimulate producer co-operation, to help the small producers. I have also mentioned the Egg Board's contract scheme which I actively support. It gives a higher price for the smaller producer. I cannot go beyond the statement I made about the application on dumping. It is being considered.

Selective Expansion Programme

Mr. Godber: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give an estimate of the additional capital required to implement the provisions of the selective expansion programme.

Mr. Peart: In the selective expansion programme the industry estimated that annual fixed investment in agriculture would increase by some £30 million by 1970. The Government, while not accepting this figure as a precise estimate, recognised that the industry would need to have the resources required to achieve the programme. As the right hon. Member knows, we review requirements annually and the recent Review award provides a substantial sum for additional investment.

Mr. Godber: Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that in the National Plan a figure rising to over £200 million a year is given as the requirement for capital investment? This is a vast sum of money. Is he saying that the recent Price Review award will help materially? There must be some other sources of capital if farmers are to do what the right hon. Gentleman wants.

Mr. Peart: In reply to a previous Question I stated the figure the right hon. Gentleman has just mentioned. We

discussed this at the Review and the award will help considerably. I am glad of this. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate it and will not be as gloomy as some of his hon. Friends.

Price Reviews

Mr. Stodart: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what basis he has assessed the efficiency factor in the last two Price Reviews at £30 million.

Mr. JohnMackie: There is no precise calculation of the amount which the industry gains each year through increasing efficiency. The figure of £30 million, which relates to Review commodities only, was estimated at the 1966 Review in agreement with the Farmers' Unions. The method used was a broad assessment, taking one year with another, of the gain from increases in the physical productivity of farming and in the scale of operations.

Mr. Stodart: Is not this a very rough and ready method to apply to an industry of such greatly varied interests, ranging from the highly mechanised arable areas to production on the hills? Does the hon. Gentleman think that this increase can be absorbed by all sectors of the industry indefinitely?

Mr. Mackie: As I said, this affects only Review commodities and no other section of the industry. If the hon. Gentleman thinks this a rough and ready method, I remind him and his right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) that they used it when they were in office so I do not see what the hon. Gentleman is carping about. He had 13 years to get it put right if he and his right hon. Friend did not like it. This has the agreement of the unions concerned, which were, of course, consulted, as is always the case. This has been the method for all these years and we see no great reason for changing it.

Mr. Godber: The hon. Gentleman clearly wants a comment from me. Will not he accept that the present Government have increased the figure from £25 million to £30 million at a time when the opportunities for absorbing this additional sum are far less? Such changes never happened throughout our 13 years so that


there were far greater opportunities for absorption.

Mr. Mackie: That is not the case. I am speaking off the cuff, but I think I am right in saying that from 1957 to 1959 there was a bigger decrease in production than there has been in the last two years, and the increase in the productivity figure was taken account of in the same way then as it is now. So the right hon. Gentleman's argument will not hold water. I did not want him to interrupt. I was merely wondering why he was sitting muttering while I was speaking.

Milk (Standard Quantities)

Mr. Brewis: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in what way the increase in the milk standard quantities in England and the reduction in Scotland will affect milk producers in each country.

Mr. Hoy: It is estimated that the changes in the provisional standard quantities for milk at this year's Review will increase by 0·2d. a gallon the average net price received by producers in England and Wales and reduce by about the same amount the corresponding price in Scotland. But as a result of compensating factors net producer prices in the two countries are expected to be roughly equal.

Mr. Brewis: What is the point of having standard quantities anyway?

Mr. Hoy: The hon. Gentleman knows that standard quantities are worked out for different areas, and he knows the purpose of it.

Timber

Mr. Brewis: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what re duction there has been in prices for timber sold, felled, and standing, respectively, since 1960.

Mr. Peart: The average price obtained by the Forestry Commission for standing sales of softwood fell from Is. 5½d. per hoppus foot in 1960 to 1s. 4¾d. in 1966. The average price of timber felled and sold without further conversion by the Forestry Commission—which constitutes only a very small proportion of their sales—followed the same trend. Com-

parable data for the private sector as a whole is not available.

Mr. Brewis: Does not this represent a serious situation and one which is shared by timber producers in Europe? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether a scheme in a European context could not be worked out for supporting timber prices?

Mr. Peart: I do not think that there is reason to expect a further decline. There has been a steady improvement since 1963, when the price was Is. ½. I do not think we should be too pessimistic. Of course I shall watch the situation very carefully now that forestry comes under my responsibility.

Sir C. Osborne: Is the Forestry Commission working at a profit or a loss, and how much either way?

Mr. Peart: That is another question.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: You should know.

Mr. Peart: I do know. [HON. MEMBERS: "Then answer."] Mr. Speaker continually rebukes even Ministers, and quite rightly, for straying to other ground.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We had better get back to equable questions on agriculture.

"Torrey Canyon"

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the damage caused to fish and shell fish by the "Torrey Canyon" oil.

Mr. Peart: There have been no discernible effects on fish in the open sea. Close inshore and on beaches where oil pollution was severe and large quantities of detergents have been used, fish living on the edge of the sea, such as sandeels, have been killed, but only a very few dead lobsters and crabs have been found. There has been no appreciable damage to commercial fisheries, but scientists will continue to monitor the area to assess any long-term effects on marine life.

Mr. Wall: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that comprehensive Reply.


Is he aware that there is some anxiety about the effect of detergents, which in time will fall to the seabed, on plankton and fish spawn? Will he keep that carefully under review?

Mr. Peart: Yes, Sir. The hon. Gentleman has rightly drawn attention to a matter which could be important. We have this in mind.

Mr. Baker: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned lobsters and crabs. What about the effect on nephrops generally?

Mr. Peart: I think that my Answer, which was fully comprehensive, showed that there is little cause for anxiety. Nevertheless, I am still anxious, for the reasons which his hon. Friend mentioned and for others, that we should watch this carefully.

White Fish (Price Scheme)

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what report he has received from the White Fish Authority about their inquiry on a statutory minimum price scheme for white fish.

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if Her Majesty's Government are still considering whether to make a financial contribution to a minimum prices scheme for white fish as an essential element for the successful launching of such a scheme.

Mr. Hoy: I have nothing to add to the answer given on 5th April, 1967, by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland.—[Vol. 744, c. 213.]

Mr. Wall: Has not the advice from this side of the House always been that a statutory scheme cannot be satisfactory unless the Government give it financial assistance? Now that the White Fish Authority's inquiry has come to exactly the same conclusion, what action do the Government propose?

Mr. Hoy: The hon. Gentleman has changed his line of argument, even from our last Question Time; there is a little cover up here. All I say is that I have nothing further to add. However, I assure the House that we will give consideration to the Estimates Committee's recommendation.

Mr. G. Campbell: I have not shifted my line of argument. Would the hon. Gentleman recognise that there is little chance of such a scheme getting off the ground unless there is a Government financial contribution?

Mr. Hoy: I have already said that we would have to consider that in the light of the report from the Estimates Committe and its recommendation that there should, perhaps, be a Treasury subvention if the minimum prices scheme is to be operated.

Mr. McNamara: Would my hon. Friend agree, though, that in view of the heavy subsidy to the industry in the hope that it will be viable in the 1970s, this would be a good way for the industry to show that it can stand on its own feet?

Mr. Hoy: All these things are taken into consideration. Whenever we go to pay more, we are met with the objection that the Government are spending too much. But if we do not take action, then we do not meet the wishes of hon. Gentlemen who want more.

Brucellosis

Mr. Kitson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he will take to encourage the voluntary scheme for brucellosis control.

Mr. Peart: I am confident that the many advantages of freedom from brucellosis will encourage farmers who can qualify to take advantage of the facilities offered by this scheme so that the reservoir of accredited brucellosis-free stock essential to any campaign of eradication can be built up.

Mr. Kitson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the British Veterinary Association is concerned that the scheme will take a long time to come properly into operation and that the E.E.C. directive on trade now forbids the importation of live cattle from this country because of brucellosis? This will be very serious for our pedigree breeders.

Mr. Peart: I have always recognised that it is important to have a brucellosis scheme and I only wish that my predecessors had done this. As the hon. Member knows, I have announced a


scheme. I do not share the criticism of the veterinary profession in this respect. The hon. Member is on a wrong point.

Irish Beef Cattle

Mr. Kitson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what undertakings he has received from the Irish Government on the marketing at fair prices of beef cattle exported from that country.

Mr. Peart: I cannot yet add to my reply of 28th April to the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling).—[Vol. 745. c. 353.]

Mr. Kitson: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell us what discussions he has had so that we do not have a debacle like that in the meat industry last autumn?

Mr. Peart: I have had discussions and a statement was made about my visit to Dublin. I am to see the Irish Minister again very shortly.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Since the United Kingdom taxpayers are pumping over £10 million a year into Eire agriculture, have we no right to some undertaking, particularly with regard to the subsidised Eire dead meat trade?

Mr. Peart: The hon. and learned Gentleman is rather jaundiced about this for obvious reasons. I understand his prejudices, but he must remember that we had an Anglo-Eire Agreement which we tried to follow in spirit. Where there are difficulties like this, I make my views and those of the Government well known.

Mr. Godber: But the right hon. Gentleman must be aware that this is a matter not of prejudices but of hard fact, affecting the British farmer and the British taxpayer and that, under the agreement for which he is responsible, the British taxpayer is paying a lot of money and the British farmer was harmed last autumn. Would the right hon. Gentleman say something about that?

Mr. Peart: As I have said repeatedly, hon. Gentlemen opposite did not oppose the Irish Trade Agreement. I have made my position clear on Irish fats. I objected to the export subsidy.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: As the imposition of the Irish subsidy came as a surprise to

the Government, should not a vigilant Minister of Agriculture have foreseen this possibility and assured a prior condition in this respect before approving the Agreement?

Mr. Peart: I am not a soothsayer or involved in magic of the kind the hon. Gentleman thinks a Minister should be. Immediately I knew of it, I made my views known strongly, unlike my predecessors.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Would my hon. Friend not agree that the Irish Agreement is far from being a one-sided bargain, in that there are substantial industrial benefits which this country will have in the next seven years?

Mr. Peart: I thought that the Trade Agreement was good for both countries and I am surprised that at this late stage, when it is operating, hon. Members should continually snipe at the Irish.

Sir Knox Cunningham: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that Reply, I beg to give notice that I will seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

Agricultural Land

Mr. Baker: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what addition to the existing acreage of agricultural land in Great Britain will be required to fulfil the requirements of the selective expansion programme of the National Plan, assuming that present levels of productivity are maintained;
(2) whether he will estimate the proportion of the total land area of Great Britain required for agricultural use in 1980.

Mr. John Mackie: The selective expansion programme is based on the maintenance of the rate of increase in the industry's productivity which more than offsets the decline in the acreage of agricultural land. I see no reason why on this basis the objectives of the programme should not be achieved with the present or even a slightly smaller acreage than we have today. I cannot usefully speculate about the longer term position.

Mr. Baker: Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that the essential interests of


agriculture will be safeguarded when agricultural land is swallowed up for other purposes and that any arrangement by the Food and Agriculture Organisation for the feeding of undeveloped countries will be borne in mind so that British agriculture can play its part in any possible agreement?

Mr. Mackie: I can give the hon. Member such an assurance on both questions.

Mr. Stodart: To achieve the selective expansion programme, of which beef is a considerable feature, does the hon. Gentleman's reply mean that he expects that the present hill areas will carry a greater number of cattle than so far and that production will be in that way increased?

Mr. Mackie: The hon. Gentleman knows our plans for the hill areas, where we are giving a 50 per cent. grant towards land improvement, have increased the hill cattle subsidy by 25s. and have given a supplement to the drainage subsidy of an extra 10 per cent. All those things should help to improve hill land. If people improve the land, they must intend to do something with it; as the hon. Gentleman knows, that type of land will carry cattle and sheep.

Investment Incentives

Mr. R. W. Elliott: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why investment incentives are now included within the total expenditure on agricultural support set out in the Price Review White Paper.

Mr. Godber: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why the figure of estimated cost of investment grants for agriculture has been included in the list of production grants given in this year's Price Review White Paper.

Mr. Peart: Agriculture is among the industries benefiting from the investment incentives. These replace the previous investment allowances and are included with other payments to agriculture because they now take the form of direct Exchequer payments instead of tax concessions.

Mr. Elliott: But were not investment grants formerly included as an item in the total review award? Therefore, is it not bogus to include it this year?

Mr. Peart: No. They are given for information, but they do not come into the review calculations. This is why there is a distinction. But they are included in Exchequer payments.

Mr. Godber: This is not satisfactory. They are included in the total clearly given in the White Paper and as such must be used as a bargaining factor, certainly by Treasury officials if by nobody else, in regard to the totality of the requirement. Surely the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry should be concerned in this. There was no provision for the old investment allowances. Therefore, it must be a distortion of the total if it is now included when it was not included before.

Mr. Peart: I am sorry; it is not a distortion of the totality. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman is still prejudiced because of the Treasury's attitude when he was involved in the administration. I assure him that there is no distortion.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent the figure of £9·6 million investment incentives contained in the 1967 Annual Review takes into account the extra taxation which the agricultural industry will bear as a result of the withdrawal of investment allowances.

Mr. Peart: This figure refers only to direct Exchequer payments and takes no account of changes in the tax position.

Mr. Hill: As the Review as a whole sets out to provide mathematical statement of the balance of support going to the agriculture industry, would not a fairer picture be given if the Minister included an estimate of the amount of extra taxation which the industry will bear to offset the loss of the investment incentives? What is the amount?

Mr. Peart: I will consider that suggestion. It is true that the figure in the White Paper, £9·6 million, did not include, for example, horticulture or higher initial allowances. That was because these are not relevant to the Annual Review. I am anxious to give this information, and these figures were not included purely for that reason. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no question of our wanting to hide this information.

Beef Production

Mr. Loveys: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further steps he will take to co-ordinate home production with imported supplies of beef.

Mr. Peart: I cannot usefully add to the Reply I gave on 22nd March to the hon. Member and others, as the discussions I referred to then are still continuing.— [Vol. 743, c. 1686–8.]

Mr. Loveys: When will the Minister be able to give a definite assurance that action is to be taken to prevent the over-supply of our markets which occurred last autumn? Would not he agree that much of this over-supply is caused, not only by the Anglo-Irish agreement, about which we heard earlier, but by the fact that we are outside the Common Market area and therefore are adversely affected by the levies imposed in the market?

Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman talks about the co-ordination of home production and imported supplies. He would not wish me to comment about the operation of the levy; this question affects mainly exports going into the Community. We keep continuously in touch with our traditional suppliers. We have what is called a Meat Study Group. We bear in mind the supplies to our market and try to make an assessment. The situation is, I think, satisfactory.

Mr. Peter Mills: Surely the right hon. Gentleman must agree that since the Socialists have been in power there has been no co-ordination between home suppliers and overseas suppliers and that only a system of control of imports and levies will solve the problem.

Mr. Peart: I have followed broadly the traditional policy which was pursued by my predecessors in this respect. The hon. Member's criticism bears no relation to the facts. It is not true at all.

Mr. Stodart: Is not the Minister getting himself into acute difficulty through saying one thing to New Zealand and quite the reverse to English farmers?

Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is absolutely untrue. I have said to our New Zealand friends—and I say "friends"—that I believe that in the future development of our home production and the completion of the selective expansion programme the British farmer

shall have the greatest share. On the other hand, we must bear in mind traditional agreements. Right hon. Members opposite like me to break them.

Mr. Bence: In the interests of the housewives of this country, would my right hon. Friend ensure that there is reasonable competition within home production so that we can stop any possible rise in the cost of living?

Mr. Peart: As my hon. Friend knows, apart from being Minister of Agriculture, I am also Minister of Food and therefore I must bear in mind the needs of consumers.

Liquid Egg Products (Profits)

Mr. Pardoe: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much has been recovered by the British Egg Marketing Board from the manufacturers of pasteurised liquid egg products in excess profits; and if he will set up an inquiry into the reasons why these profits were allowed to be made.

Mr. Hoy: This is a matter for the British Egg Marketing Board. Ministers can only consider intervention under the Agricultural Marketing Act if they receive a formal complaint and we have received no such complaint on this matter.

Mr. Pardoe: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply, but is he not aware that the excess profits made in this case are, in relation to the total turnover, just as grievous as those made in the case of Bristol Siddeley. Does he not think that an investigation of that sort should be made into this matter?

Mr. Hoy: As I have said, the Egg Board is responsible for its own commercial policy, and unless we receive a formal complaint we have no power to refer the matter to the Committee of Investigation. So far we have not received a complaint.

Mr. Rankin: Is my hon. Friend aware that a large part of these excess profits are derived from eggs produced by battery hens? Would he look—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Question is about profits on pasteurised eggs.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. Battery hens produce eggs which are turned into liquid eggs which help to make these profits.

Mr. Speaker: I was aware of all the facts which the hon. Gentleman has given. Supplementary questions, however, must be related to the Question on the Order Paper.

Egg Marketing Board (Sales)

Mr. Pardoe: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what per-

SALES OF EGGS IN SHELL



1958–59
1959–60
1960–61
1961–62
1962–63
1963–64
1964–65
1965–66
(million dozen) 1966–67 (Forecast)


Sales of Eggs in Shell by the British Egg Marketing Board*
646†
649†
601†
621†
609†
615†
666†
627
632§


Other Home Sales*
225
264
333
346
351
371
377
405
415


Imports of Eggs in Shell‡
18
17
46
28
34
22
20
21
19


Total Supplies of Eggs in Shell
889
930
980
995
994
1,008
1,063
1,053
1,066


Board's sales as percentage of total sales of eggs in shell
72·7
69·8
61·3
62·4
61·3
61· 0
62·7
59·5
59·3


Note: Figures for 1958–59 to 1966–67 are derived from Table E of the White Paper on the Annual Review and Determination of Guarantees 1966 (Cmnd. 2933) and 1967 (Cmnd. 3229), deductions having been made from "Other Home Supplies" for the estimated quantity of eggs consumed on farms.


* June-May years for home production.


† Includes an estimate for second-quality eggs sold by the Board to packers and subsequently sold in shell (prior to 1st January, 1964).


‡ July-June years for imports.


§ Includes second-quality eggs sold in shell from 21st November to 20th December, 1966.

Beef Cow Subsidy

Mr. Monro: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if dual purpose dairy shorthorn cows and heifers will be eligible for the beef cow subsidy.

Mr. Hoy: This subsidy is payable, regardless of breed, on cows in herds kept primarily for breeding calves for beef. So a herd containing cows of dual-purpose type may be eligible, depending on the circumstances of the individual herd.

Mr. Monro: Surely the object of this subsidy is to provide beef for this country. Therefore, why should milk producers be penalised for doing just that?

Mr. Hoy: As the hon. Gentleman says, the purpose of the subsidy is to provide beef. All I am saying is that any herd which does that qualifies for subsidy. As I reminded the hon. Gentleman on a previous occasion, the fact that a herd

centage of the total number of eggs sold in the United Kingdom have been sold by the British Egg Marketing Board in each year since it started operations.

Mr. Hoy: With permission, I will circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the figures for each of the complete years since the Board began trading operations:

produces a given quantity of milk does not necessarily disqualify it from receiving subsidy. Allowance is made for that. We have gone into this matter very carefully in consultation with everyone concerned and done our best to meet all their wishes.

Food Imports

Mr. Monro: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to reduce the import of food from countries with temperate climates.

Mr. Peart: Under the Government's selective expansion programme agriculture is expected to make a substantial contribution to import saving. The recent Review award provides the industry with resources to finance further investment needed to achieve the programme. The Agriculture Bill contains other measures to help agriculture to expand production on the basis of increasing productivity.

Mr. Monro: Surely the only way to achieve the objective of increasing production at home is to reduce imports. Is the right hon. Gentleman making a definite effort to do that?

Mr. Peart: I stressed in the White Paper that we believe that the fulfilment of the expansion programme will save imports. I cannot go beyond that.

Mr. Prior: How can the Minister reduce imports just by producing more at home unless he takes physical action to do so?

Mr. Peart: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is not aware that we estimate in the selective expansion programme that the British people will consume £200 million worth more of produce. I hope that that fact is understood by hon. Members.

Agricultural Workers

Mr. Bitten: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the estimated decline in the full-time employment of agricultural workers since the publication of the National Plan; what annual figure this represents; how it compares with the annual rate of decline predicted in the National Plan; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. John Mackie: The number of regular whole-time agricultural workers in the United Kingdom has fallen by 50,600 between June, 1964, and June, 1966. This represents an annual rate of 25,000. The selective expansion programme envisaged a reduction in total agricultural manpower of 140,000 persons by 1970 but no precise annual rates were given and no distinction was made between regular whole-time workers and other workers. It is too early to say whether the total outflow will be mere or less than 140,000 by 1970.

Mr. Biffen: None the less, is the hon. Gentleman aware that these figures have already given considerable cause for disquiet, as expressed by the President of the National Union of Agricultural Workers, and that, whatever may be the view of the National Plan, there are many people who believe that the agricultural labour force must be maintained and that the Government's prices and incomes policy must not be used to mili-I

tate against the level of earnings of that industry?

Mr. Mackie: We did not just pick this figure out of a hat. We looked at the situation between 1945 and the present time and based our calculations on what had happened in that period with the increase in production and productivity. I cannot think that even the hon. Gentleman with his knowledge of agriculture would say that in 1967 that will just stop.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Is not the really disturbing factor in the figures which the hon. Gentleman has given the fact that the figures tend to increase year by year at a more rapid rate than foreseen in the National Plan? Is not the hon. Gentleman too complacent?

Mr. Mackie: That is not the case. The rate of outflow has fallen by more than 1 per cent. over the last year. I do not want to be too personal about the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but I have been in an area there where there were about 14 employees on a 700-acre farm which was growing only grain and some potatoes. If there is any area which can afford to put a few men out, it is that.

Mr. Rankin: Will my hon. Friend say how far the reduction in the number of farm employees has been due to the spread of battery farming, particularly with regard to hens? [Laughter.] This is important.

Mr. Mackie: I am almost sorry, Mr. Speaker, that you did not rule that one out of order. I think that the answer is, "No, Sir."

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. Is is not sufficient for an hon. Member to have one person to rule him out of order, and not two?

Mr. Speaker: I think that the answer is "Yes".

Mr. Godber: In the light of the hon. Gentleman's reply, is it not clear that as things are going, this is about the only target in the selective expansion programme which is likely to be hit?

Mr. Mackie: No. We have hit it in cereals and we have hit it in milk, and hope that we have hit it in eggs.

Retail Food Prices

Mr. W. Molloy: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action has been undertaken by his Department, on receipt of notification of increases in retail food prices, which offend the principles of the prices and incomes standstill.

Mr. Peart: Where a notification offends the prices and incomes policy my Department immediately points this out to the firm concerned and asks them to reconsider it.
Of the 167 notifications of proposed price increases by manufacturers which we had dealt with by 25th April, 70 were fully in accordance with the policy. Of the rest, in all but two cases the firms either withdrew or modified their proposals to accord with the policy. In the two other cases my right hon. Friend the First Secretary and I considered taking action under Part IV of the Prices and Incomes Act, but in the end the firms reversed their price increases, so making statutory action unecessary.

Mr. Molloy: I appreciate my right hon. Friend's difficulty in this context, but is he not aware that the rise in food prices, particularly in small retail shops, the slipping on of 2d. and 3d., has caused great suspicion? In conjunction with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, will he have a hard look at the official index, which is now becoming almost laughable and something of which no one takes serious notice?

Mr. Peart: I will certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said, but between 20th July, 1966, when the prices and incomes policy was introduced, and March, 1967, there was an increase of only 1·1 per cent. as compared with an average of 1·6 per cent. over the same period of the previous two years.

Mr. Heffer: Is it not quite obvious, despite my right hon. Friend's reply, that these figures are not accepted by the housewife? Will he consider with the First Secretary establishing a system of price control offices, associated with local authorities, which could then be approached by housewives and which could investigate the situation, as hap-

pened in France when there was both a wage and price freeze in that country?

Mr. Peart: I hope that my hon. Friend will not give the example of France.

Mr. Heffer: What is wrong with it?

Mr. Peart: The situation is quite different. Here we have a vigorous Parliamentary democracy and it is, therefore, not easy to impose something which could not really be done even in wartime.

Mr. Prior: Is it not the long-term result of the policy of trying to keep down prices that competitors are merely brought together, so that they no longer compete, and in the end does not that force up prices?

Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman must recognise that whatever the arguments about the index, the figures which I have given are comparable figures and show an improvement.

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order. In view of that unsatisfactory reply, I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Pig Production

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what increase in pig production he estimates as a result of the 1967 Agricultural Price Review Award.

Mr. Hoy: The higher basic guaranteed price determined at the Review is related to the production level we want to see, namely 12·8 to 13·6 million pigs. The Review award aims to provide the incentive and resources for the expansion required.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the prices of bacon pigs are as much as 2s. 4d. a score less now than they were before the Price Review award? How does he reconcile that with an increase in guaranteed prices at the award? Does the think that this will increase pig production and reach the target which he mentioned?

Mr. Hoy: The hon. Gentleman knows that the figure which the bacon curer pays the bacon producer is not controlled by the Government. This is a price agreement between the farmer and the


bacon curer. The hon. Gentleman also knows that last year, right up to the Review, we were having trouble with the curers, who said that they were having to pay farmers so much that they were not getting pigs to cure. I hope that what we have done is to provide fairly generous measures to get pig production up to where we want it to be; and I hope that both the curer and the farmer will make sensible, and satisfactory arrangements which will result in both earning their livelihoods.

Agricultural Machinery (Investment Grants)

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends to issue the forms for applying for investment grants on new agricultural machinery.

Mr. John Mackie: As soon as the Agriculture Bill has received the Royal Assent and the necessary Order has been made bringing the relevant sections of the Act into force.

Mr. Ridley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the result of this long delay is that people have been going without their money for a long time? Will he be prepared to pay interest on the money which the Government owe to the citizens of this country, as we have to pay interest on taxation which is outstanding to the Government?

Mr. Mackie: The answer is "No".

Tractors (Safety Cabs)

Mr. Body: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he proposes to introduce regulations to govern the use of safety cabs on agricultural tractors.

Mr. Peart: I hope to lay these regulations before Parliament immediately after the Whitsun adjournment.

Fish Supplies

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied that the British fishing industry will produce enough fish to feed the population of Great Britain by the 1980s; and if he will make a statemen.

Mr. Hoy: The proportion of our fish supplies that will be home-produced at any time will depend on a variety of factors, including the fishing effort, yields, costs and prices in this country and elsewhere. These factors are kept under review. We foresee little change in the short-term, but we cannot speculate about the more distant future.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in spite of being an island nation with a great seafaring tradition, we are now 12th in the world league table of fish producing nations? Is not there a real need to give the fishing industry a target or aim, even a selective expansion programme, to enable it to stretch its capacity and resources and play a far more important part in the future of our economy?

Mr. Hoy: We have given fairly generous support to the fishing industry by way of grants, subsidies and so on, and if it is any consolation to the hon. Gentleman, he might be interested to know that in 1966 the British catch was 935,000 tons, the highest for 10 years.

Mr. McNamara: Even if my hon. Friend cannot speculate about the future, would he care to speculate on the effect on the British fishing industry of our joining the E.E.C.?

Mr. Hoy: Not arising out of this Question.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does not my hon. Friend realise that within the next few years, certainly by 1980, fish supplies will be greatly depleted unless the fishery protection squadrons are greatly strengthened, both on the sea and in the air, and will he take steps to do this?

Mr. Hoy: That question is also rather wide of the main Question, but I assure my hon. and learned Friend that we have, of course, taken all these matters into consideration. Occasionally international agreements are broken, but, on the whole, they are working reasonably well.

Agricultural Land (Foreign Nationals)

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the proportion of agricultural land in Great Britain


which is owned by foreign nationals; and what are the recent and prospective trends.

Mr. John Mackie: I have no information on which to base such an estimate.

Mr. Hill: Ought not the Minister to have a clear idea about this? Is he aware that at the moment we appear to know less about land ownership in this country than we knew 900 years ago, at the time of the Domesday Book? Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that our entry into the Common Market will act as a powerful stimulus to land buying in this country? In view of the side effects of this on sovereignty and so on, should not the hon. Gentleman be studying this problem and formulating a policy about it?

Mr. Mackie: If the hon. Gentleman will promise not to criticise us for employing more people to do it, then I will certainly consider his proposition.

Mr. Molloy: Is not the real answer—to avoid all this embarrassment in relation to foreign nationals owning land in this and other countries—for the British people to own the land themselves, and should not we nationalise the land?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Mackie: That might not be too bad a solution.

European Economic Community

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many visits, and of what duration, have been paid by senior officials of his Department to Brussels since 10th November, 1966, to learn at first hand the problems of the United Kingdom joining the European Economic Community.

Mr. Peart: None, for this specific purpose, since my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced on 10th November, 1966 that talks were to be held with heads of Governments of the Six. But my officials have visited Brussels for other purposes and have numerous contacts with Community officials.

Mr. Mills: Does not this prove beyond doubt that the right hon. Gentleman never really has had any enthusiasm for our

going into Europe? Is not this proved by his not allowing officials to go there to see for themselves what the problems are? If the right hon. Gentleman is going to take this matter seriously, as I hope he will, will he see that officials go to Brussels to learn at first hand what is going on?

Mr. Peart: The inference of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question shows that he is well off the mark in this matter. He is saying that I have prevented officials from going. In fact, I have encouraged my officials to have all possible contacts with the Community and with other countries in Europe. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw this prejudice. He knows full well, being a distinguished member of the Select Committee, that we are preparing a statement for the Committee.

Mr. Stodart: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that he has made a most astonishing statement? Is it not the case that the Select Committee showed that two senior officials have paid only one or two visits to Brussels in the middle of this important pre-negotiation period? Is it the case that the right hon. Gentleman is allowing his well-known dislike of the E.E.C. to lead him into such a path of lethargy that he is leaving the whole of the ground uncultivated?

Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the delegation in Brussels is the responsibility of the Foreign Office and that the arrangements have been precisely those which were concluded by my predecessors. I have considerably encouraged the making of contacts with Europe. Indeed, I am the Chairman of the Ministers' Committee in O.E.C.D. on this matter.

Mr. William Edwards: If the Minister says that this state of affairs shown by the evidence given to the Select Committee does not reveal prejudice by himself, will he make sure that it does not reveal prejudice on the part of the officials who, he says, are encouraged to go to Europe?

Mr. Peart: I resent that slur, a slur which was repeated in the Press. against my permanent officials. I believe that I have honourable civil servants to advise


me, and if people want to attack anybody in my Department, let them attack me.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Hill, Question No. 47.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: As the right hon. Gentleman has considerable influence—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I said Mr. Hill, No. 47.

Farm Incomes (Wales)

Mr. Elystan Morgan: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will arrange for his Department to publish annually a comprehensive survey of farm incomes in Wales.

Mr. John Mackie: Figures of farm incomes for Wales are published annually in the Welsh Digest of Agricultural Statistics. The information is also published in the Annual Reports "Farm Incomes in England and Wales ". As an interim measure, because of a change in the method of classification, farm income data for Wales in the Annual Report for 1965 was amalgamated with similar information for Devon and Cornwall. In the next Report, to be published in March, 1968. information will be shown for Wales separately.

Mr. Morgan: While thanking my hon. Friend for that encouraging reply, may I ask him to confirm that the rather more comprehensive studies that have been made by the universities, and particularly by the University of Wales, in respect of Wales will be incorporated in the official Government publication?

Mr. Mackie: Yes, Sir. I can confirm that.

Ploughing-Up Grant

Mr. Elystan Morgan: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will seek to make a grant of £5 per acre for the ploughing of land on which grass or any non-cereal crop is to be grown.

Mr. John Mackie: No, Sir. As we made clear in the Annual Review White Paper, the Government do not consider that there is a case for providing a special incentive for ploughing up land for grass except where the conditions of the Part II grant apply; but we are proposing to

introduce a grant for field beans, starting with the 1968 crop, and we shall be discussing with the farmers' unions the scope for the development of other break crops.

Mr. Morgan: Would not my hon. Friend agree that this type of grant would be a just form of assistance to those areas where cereal crops cannot easily be grown and would be conducive to improving the standard of grassland, a factor which will be of considerable significance in the event of our joining the E.E.C.?

Mr. Mackie: I agree with my hon. Friend, but I would not like to take part in a discussion of what will or will not be of help in the event of our joining.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Prisons (Staff and Accommodation)

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the number of prisoners who can be housed in acceptable conditions of comfort and security in Scottish prisons, bearing in mind the existing shortage of prison staff; and how many were actually imprisoned in Scotland at the most recent date for which figures are available.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): On the basis of one prisoner per cell and proper use of dormitory accommodation, the normal capacity of Scottish prisons is 2,200 men and 100 women. On 11th April they held 2,750 men and 85 women.

Mr. Taylor: Does not this reveal a desperate position? Apart from long-term plans, would the right hon. Gentleman say what he is going to do to solve the short-term problems in Barlinnie and other grossly overcrowded prisons?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, to have overcome this problem and to have built new prisons, a decision would have had to be taken quite a long time ago. However, we are getting on well and are making considerable improvements. The point that may be worrying the hon. Gentleman is the recruitment of prison officers; and he may be interested to know that last year was one of the best we have had for a long time in this respect.

Young Offenders

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many young people between the ages of 14 and 16 years were convicted in Scotland in the year 1966; and what were the comparable figures for the years 1965, 1961 and 1956, respectively.

Mr. Ross: In 1966 charges were proved against 16,336 persons between the ages of 14 and 16. The figures for 1965, 1961 and 1956 were 15,544, 12,146 and 8,314.

Mr. Taylor: This shows that the numbers have doubled in a period of 10 years. Does the Secretary of State not think that it was shocking to cut down so substantially on community and recreational projects over the last two years? What plans has he to deal with this situation?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman goes a bit far there. There has been no such cut down, as he probably knows. This is a very serious problem. The curve has been rising steeply over the past 10 years, though I am glad to say not so steeply over the past five. However, it is a very serious problem for the whole community, and that is why we place considerable importance on the Kilbrandon Report and the working out of different schemes for dealing with young people between 14 and 16. Society has a serious responsibility here, and we must face up to it.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before half-past Nine o'clock.—[Mr. Harper.]

SUPPLY

[19TH ALLOTED DAY] [2nd Series],— considered.

PRICES AND INCOMES

3.31 p.m.

Mr. Michael Noble: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Temporary Restrictions on Pay Increases (20th July 1966 Levels) (No. 8) Order 1967 (S.I., 1967, No. 617), dated 18th April 1967, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th April, be annulled.
This is one of a series of Orders which have been debated in the House over the last few months. They arose because the Government imposed the freeze on the arbitrary date of 20th July last year. In bringing forward this type of freeze, the policy of the Government was perhaps most clearly stated by the First Secretary when he was speaking to the Scottish Trades Union Council in Glasgow on 27th February this year, when he said:
An income policy means progressive injection of greater justice and greater fairness.
In considering this Order we have to look at the facts which have led up to it in relation to that statement.
It is true that the Orders which we have discussed have been of many and varied sorts. There have been occasions when one business in an industry has caused an Order to be produced. There have been others which related to much wider cases as this Order does.
If we look at the facts which led up to the making of it, the employers' association and the union concerned agreed together that a shilling an hour increase in wages should be paid to all their workers on 9th May, 1966—

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are we now discussing the Rothesay Order or the E.T.U. Order?

Mr. Speaker: We are discussing the E.T.U. Order.

Mr. Noble: The formal ratification of the award was delayed until 21st July, the day after the dire date of 20th,


for three reasons. None of them was the direct responsibility of any part of the negotiating team. It is true that the E.T.U. wanted, as was quite reasonable, to delay ratifying the Scottish award until it had achieved the same or similar results in an agreement for England and Wales, and that agreement was ratified on 30th June. Unfortunately, a delay occurred for two further reasons. The first was that the E.T.U. had to elect its office bearers. The second one, which was also of no very great importance at the time, was that it is normal in Scotland for holidays to take place at the beginning of July and, therefore, ratification was postponed until the holidays were over.
On 5th March, 1967, 56,000 workers in England and Wales were given their 13 per cent. increase after the case had gone to the Prices and Incomes Board, which had certain comments to make about the form an which the increase was to be given, the productivity arrangements, and so on. However, it was given, in spite of the criticisms of the Prices and Incomes Board, because the agreement had been ratified on 30th June.
The people in whom we are interested today are not 56,000 in number, as was the case in England and Wales, but about 10,000 in Scotland. They were immediately put into some difficulty because the employers' association in Scotland advised its members on 6th March, which was the day after the English workers were given their increase, that its 600 members should pay the increase from that date. They had been told by their employees that, unless they could match the English position, they would create industrial difficulty, possibly resulting in strike action. The association, therefore, advised its 600 members to pay the increase, and they did.
Following that, as perhaps must have been known would happen, the award was frozen by the Order which we are now considering until some date later in the year—possibly 1st July, possibly much later; neither they nor we know. As the E.T.U. had advised might happen, that was followed by some strike action and certainly by a great deal of discontent.
In Orders of this sort, the Government have continually said to the House that they are bound absolutely by the terms of

the White Paper and that they cannot possibly consider cases which were agreed after 20th July. However, I believe that the Government could have taken some action and could at least have tried to save what little face they have left in these negotiations.
I stress that these are not negotiations against any one union. Very often in these cases they are negotiations against an agreement between employers and unions who have come to an honourable settlement for the benefit of their trade in the way that these things have always been done in the past.
I want to touch on the provision in the White Paper (Cmnd. 3150) by which the Minister can invoke special measures where he believes that there is a gross anomaly. The words in the White Paper are:
There may be exceptional circumstances in which some immediate improvement in pay is imperative to correct a gross anomaly.
The Government have been remarkably coy in telling either the unions or the House what they consider a "gross anomaly" to me. This puts unions—as in the case of the E.T.U.—and the House in great difficulty, because the unions believed that if the increase for which they were asking, and which the employers gave, was forbidden, there would be such a gross anomaly that the position would immediately be corrected.
The only evidence that we have of the Government's views about a gross anomaly is in the speech made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan), the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, during the debate on 2nd March on the problems of N.A.L.G.O. when he said:
The White Paper is very narrowly drawn on this point. The kind of case which is meant to come under this heading is that for example of the colliery overmen and deputees, when there were large groups of men working side by side, one group with a salary increase, and the other without."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd March, 1967; Vol. 742, c. 746.]
Those are the only words which the House has had which have sought to define a "gross anomaly". Those were the words of a Government spokesman on that day and I ask the Minister who is to reply to the debate to say whether that is the Government's policy, and whether that is what the Government intend to do. If the Minister would like to answer


that now, it will save time, but as he is shaking his head I shall continue with what I have to say.
If that is the definition of an anomaly, the case for our Prayer today to annul the Order is made out, because at Faslane, at Ardeer, and at many other power stations in Scotland, people from the E.T.U. in Scotland are working side by side with their colleagues who belong to E.T.U. branches in England. As the Secretary of State knows, this is because so many large projects are going on in Scotland—due largely to plans for regional development which have been fostered for a number of years—that, inevitably, contractors in Scotland have not been able to take on all the work themselves, and the work has, therefore, been given to English contractors who are now working alongside their Scottish colleagues.
We feel that it is important to debate this Order this afternoon because the issue is not just simply whether these 10,000 people should be given a rise which their colleagues across the Border have been given, but because of the effect which this will have on a great deal of the rest of industry in Scotland at the moment. I know that within the limitations of order it is difficult to develop this as fully as one would wish, but one of the effects of Orders of this kind is that the only way in which people can get extra is to cross the Border from Scotland to England where different rules and different rates apply, perhaps, as in this case, just for a question of one day.
We know, too, that in its operation the freeze is bound to have the effect, particularly in respect of the big contractors, of helping those who come up from London where high rates of pay have been allowed. We have debated this on other occasions, but today in this Order the main disadvantage, which is perfectly clear, is that it is not necessary for workers to cross the Border to get a rise in wages. All that they have to do is to cross a building site.
There is already a shortage of skills in the electrical contracting business, and if Scottish firms are to lose their key men to their rivals working on the same site, or nearby, the long-term effect on the electrical industry in Scotland is bound to be disastrous. There is nothing that we

can see, either in what the Government have said up to date, or in what they are trying to tell us in these Orders, which gives these businesses any real satisfaction that the problem will be tackled in a month's time, in three months' time, in six months' time, or in nine months' time. There is no certainty in this, and if there is no certainty for the contractors, how much less is there for the men who are affected?
It may be right that at times of economic crisis a total wage freeze should be made over the entire country. If that were done, none of these Orders would be necessary, because it would apply to everybody in the country, and that might be rough justice, but where the justice is not clear is in the fact that during the first three months of this year about 4 million workers were given an increase in pay of about £1,700,000. I know that in the same industries last year only 2,700,000 people got a rise of £930,000, which was considerably less. I know, too, that if one looks at the overall picture one sees that there has been a saving of about £1 million on wages paid out this year compared with last year and that there is practically no difference between this year's figure and that for 1965, but whatever these figures show, one thing which is abundantly clear is that these 10,000 people have been affected because of a purely technical problem of one day.
The First Secretary of State has said that the policy behind these Orders is to make certain that greater justice is brought to the workers. It is, therefore, impossible to see why the Government have brought this Order in now, or, indeed, at any time, because this is not a case, as with some other Orders, of giving increases to the lower-paid workers. The evidence is that these people are in what one might call the medium level scale, but what is intolerable—and it is intolerable not just becuse these happen to be men who live in Scotland; it would be equally intolerable if it were the other way round—is that people working side by side, day after day, on almost identical work find that one gets an increase and the other does not.
This is intolerable, because the aim of both the association and the trade unions in negotiating this agreement was that the two countries should move together. They realised the importance of having a level rate on both sides of the Border.


They wanted this, and the employers were willing for this to happen.
The Government, however, have decided that because one agreement was signed on 30th June it can go through, but because the other was not signed until 21st July it cannot. They have decided to be obstinate about it. They have decided that in spite of all the arguments which have been advanced by the trade unions, by the employers and by others, they will stick to the technical detail of being 24 hours late in signing the agreement.
Later today we shall discuss another Order, so I shall only touch on it now. In the case of the second Order the Government may technically have a slightly better case because the Order was a little later than just one day, though they have morally a rather worse case. However, this will be debated later.
I think what is intolerable to this side of the House—and I hope the same feeling of revulsion is shared by a good many Members opposite—is that, in a case where there is perhaps the clearest possible example of anomaly having taken place in the series of anomalies that have been debated in the House, the Government should fail to take any action. I believe that they have done this simply and solely because they were afraid that if they gave way on this one they would then have to give way on the N.A.L.G.O. case, too. If this is so, then that makes it even worse—that in one quite separate case quite different people should be penalised so as not to cause the Government greater embarrassment in another one.
I cannot help believing that the Government feel as guilty about this as they do about any action they have taken during the last few months. I hope very much that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, if he is to reply to the debate, as I think he is, will throw away the note which he has been given by his Department explaining the various reasons, which we have heard so often, why the Government can take no action, and realise that this is an appeal made with great sincerity by the House which itself believes that in this case justice has not only not been done but cannot possibly be seen to be done.
I hope that it will not be necessary to divide the House, but if it is I am certain that my hon. and right hon. Friends will do so, and that a good many hon. Gentlemen on the benches opposite, if they follow what they know to be right, will follow us into the Lobby.

3.52 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I rise to speak on this Order for two very good reasons. First, I myself was engaged in the contracting industry for many years and was working alongside electricians and, therefore, I have some knowledge of their problems and their conditions. Secondly, I am opposed to this Order. They are two very good reasons why I should speak here this afternoon.
I find that this Order is about the strangest one we have had in front of us since we have had this series of Orders— [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] We have had some very strange ones in the past, as my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) agrees, but this is about the strangest, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) pointed out. I think that the facts he gave are not to be disputed.
The agreement with the employers' association and the Electrical Trades Union for England and Wales was signed on 30th June. This one was agreed one day after the announcement made in the House about the wage freeze. I think that I should draw attention to what actually happened at the discussion between the employers and the E.T.U. at that meeting. I have been very fortunate in having had a copy of the minutes of that meeting presented to me.
The convenor of the Labour Committee of the Electrical Contractors' Association of Scotland was Mr. J. R. Munro. Immediately, Mr. Munro referred to the statement in the House of Commons the previous day and particularly to the wage freeze on which a Government White Paper was to be issued very soon and later backed by legislation, and he asked the General Secretary of the Electrical Trades Union if it was the desire of the E.T.U. to proceed with the matters which had been discussed at the last joint meeting on 9th May, particularly those subjects on which tentative agreement had been reached. Mr. Chapple replied that the


union's representative wished, if possible, to reach a formal agreement on wage rates irrespective of the Prime Minister's announcement.
I am quite certain that the electrical trade unionists' view was that in view of the fact that an agreement had been reached for the English electrical trade unionists in the contracting industry obviously there would be nothing to stop from becoming effective an agreement which was to bring them in Scotland up to parity—that nothing would be done to stop this particular agreement going through.
I understand very well the problem that the electricians have to face in the contracting industry. In this industry, in general, over the years we have fought very hard to get national wage agreements with the possibility of national wage rates, because it has always been precisely these anomalies between one area and another which have been a great source of irritation and conflict in the building and construction industry. I understand that parity was actually reached, although not in a national agreement, in 1965. This decision of the Government in not allowing this increase to go through means, of course, that this parity has been stopped. This must lead to a great deal of conflict, and unhappiness for the members of the Electrical Trades Union in Scotland.
I put to my hon. Friends on this side of the House, and to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench, the situation where the Electrical Trades Union workers on the contracting side are working alongside their brothers who have come on big sites from Britain —[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] England. Although I am in favour of the Common Market I sometimes think of Scotland as a foreign country—I do not know why. Here we have this situation, where the workers from England and Scotland are working alongside one another. They come up from England, and, naturally, bring their rate with them, because this is part of the national agreement. If one is recruited in London for a job in Scotland one goes to Scotland with one's London rate or English rate. This is the agreement which exists in the industry. Here we have this difficulty where the workers are coming up from England

and working alongside their Scottish friends, but receiving Is. per hour more.
There is another factor which is of very great interest. I have had supplied to me a copy of the stamp arrangement which exists for holiday pay for these workers in Scotland, and I understand that on 23rd May there was an increase in the cost of the stamps from 13s. 9d. up to 16s. per week and this increase was agreed to because it was anticipated that the agreement over the Is. an hour was coming off on 21st July, based on discussions which took place on 9th May. This is important, because on 9th May a tentative agreement was made.
I could speak at some length on this question. I understand why the workers took strike action. I am told that the Electrical Trade Union executive has not given its support to the workers who took strike action, thereby giving the Government—as is the case with most unions—the benefit of the doubt, reluctantly acquiescing in the policy put forward by the Government.
I understand that the workers were told that if they struck it would be a political strike. What amazes me is that in the present situation there have not been many more political strikes. Perhaps I am amazed because I am now in the House of Commons rather than on the factory floor.
I am getting a little tired of pleading with my right hon. Friends to reconsider their attitude concerning all these Orders. Almost weekly—sometimes twice a week—we are urging them to think again. But although I am a little tired, I shall do it once more, because we are now moving into a new situation. Whatever arguments we have had in the past, we know that the prices and incomes policy put forward by the Government is ending in an absolute shambles. On that basis, I ask the Government not to make the situation worse by pressing this Order. I plead with them to withdraw it now. Let them remove the anomaly that now exists between Scottish and English electrical workers.
I have had a slight altercation in the Press with the President of the Electrical Trades Union, and it might seem rather surprising that I should be defending the members of that union today. It should not be surprising, because these lads are


part of the trade union movement, and the E.T.U. is an essential part of the building and construction industry, with which I have been concerned all my life. I therefore ask my right hon. Friends to withdraw the Order and to give the lads in Scotland a square deal.

4.3 p.m.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: My right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) presented the case against the Order very effectively. It does not leave a great deal to be said. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) also dealt with the question in a very fair-minded way. This is an extremely controversial Order.
It was obvious from the beginning that the prices and incomes policy as outlined in the White Paper would involve many cases of injustice, but I doubt whether there can have been any Order so grotesquely unjust, so unreasonable and so irrational as this. It makes nonsense of the idea of fair play, and will do untold damage to industrial relations. We are, therefore, entitled to appeal to all fair-minded Members to support us in trying to persuade the Government to withdraw the Order, or to vote against the Government if they refuse to do so.
There are two questions which the Government must answer, the first concerning the anomaly and the second concerning the prior commitment. We have to ask ourselves whether this increase can be justified in terms of the White Paper. The first relevant question is: is there a gross anomaly? As has been said, an anomaly obviously exists in a situation where one man works at a rate of 8s. 6d. an hour side-by-side with a man whose basic rate is 7s. 6d. an hour. This is not a hypothetical situation. In almost every major contracting job in Scotland there are not two separate contractors, but five or six—some small and some large; some English-based and some Scottish-based.
In the case of Cockenzie the main contractor is F. H. Wheeler. There some men ate working at a basic rate of 7s. 6d. an hour and others at a basic rate of 8s. 6d. It is obvious that this anomaly will not be tolerated by the men, and that, rather than accepting the Government's decision, various subterfuges will

be employed and changes of plans introduced to get round the anomaly.
I have heard from some men of the ways in which this Order is being defeated. In one case where the English rate was 8s. 6d. a cut was effected in the site allowance payable to the English contractors in order to bring the rate down to 7s. 6d., thereby conforming to the Scottish rate. This is nonsensical, because a site allowance is or is not justified on its own merits. In this case, it is Is. 6d. an hour. Changing allowances and wages in this way makes nonsense of good industrial relations.
At Faslane, the main contractor is Aldrich. I understand that arrangements are being made for the increase to be paid. How is this being done? I understand that it is done simply by transferring men from one payroll to another—from a Scottish-based company to an English-based company. This, also, makes nonsense of Government policy.
Another question arises in the case of Scottish employees going south to work on English sites. In almost every other industry, when a worker moves to another area he receives the wages and works under the conditions applicable in that area. That is the case with local government officers. If a Scottish local government officer moves south and is employed by an English authority he will receive English rates of salary.
On the site of Egburgh, in Anglesey, however, where a Scottish firm has the major contract, it has been made clear to the Scottish employees that they will have to work under Scottish conditions. They will, therefore, be receiving lower rates than their colleagues. This creates a completely nonsensical situation which cannot be justified in terms of merit, work or fair play.
When the Government know that these arrangements are being made between employers, unions and workers so as to get round the Government's policy the least they can do is to withdraw the Order.
We then come to the question whether a commitment existed. The hon. Member for Walton has referred to this matter. I have also seen the minutes of the meeting of 21st. It contains a clear reference to what was referred to at the last meeting


on 9th May, when the Electrical Contractors' Association agreed to pay an extra Is. an hour. What clearer commitment can there be than the offer of an increase made on 9th May? The Commitment was clear, and it is obvious that everyone in the electrical contracting industry in Scotland knew that an increase would be given. Everybody knew what the amount would be, and that a commitment existed.
I turn now to the question of holiday stamps. The electrical contracting industry does not have a holiday pay system as do some other industries where workers receive pay whether they have worked or not throughout the year. In electrical contracting the payment is related to the weeks in the year which are actually worked. With a system like that, there must be some basis for the holiday pav. In this industry, if a man has his 50 stamps by working 50 weeks in the year, the idea is that he will get two weeks' holiday at his normal weekly earnings.
The Minister must answer a straight question. If there was no commitment or arrangement to increase wages by this amount, why, when the new cards were brought out on 23rd May, was an adjustment made in the holiday stamp which would increase the holiday pay by the equivalent of Is. an hour? If there was no commitment or arrangement, why were the electrical contractors so foolish or generous as to increase the holiday stamps on that day, only a few days after the meeting between the unions and the Electrical Contractors' Association? If the Government cannot answer this question satisfactorily, they must accept that there was a prior commitment and that the pay increase is, therefore, justified.
The White Paper on Severe Restraint said that only in very exceptional circumstances should an increase be allowed, and surely both the essential conditions exist here. First of all, a gross anomaly can be seen on sites in Scotland and England, and, second, a prior commitment existed. As it is not a legal decision by an independent inquiry, but a Government decision, we must look at the Order's effects and consider what good it will do for the nation and industrial relations.
There has been a two-week strike, and, if no assurance is given tonight, there could be further trouble. Housing projects in Scotland have been delayed as a result. The Minister of State for Scotland, whom we are glad to see present, will know of these delays and of those in school projects. In my own constituency, the new Queen's Park Secondary School has been held up by the strike and may not be ready for the new term. It might not be possible to make up for these delays. Overtime is the easy answer, but when men suffer such a flagrant injustice will they put forward the effort and initiative and enterprise required to catch up these last two weeks?
If we approve the Order, it will simply add to the flood of emigration which is now at an alarming level. It is at the all-time high of 47,000 net from Scotland every year. I met some electricians affected by the Order this morning and two told me that, in the Glasgow area in the past few weeks, 100 men have left the industry to go abroad or to go south for the increase which they cannot get in their own country. This is an alarming situation in Scotland, when our increase in production has fallen from 9 per cent. in 1964 to about 2 per cent.
We must also remember what will happen if we pass the Order. The English agreement was not a one-year, but a three-year agreement. The second stage, the further increase of 9d., may take place in September or perhaps, because of the new White Paper, six months from then. Are we to have the outrageous position of the second stage of the English increase, which will put the differential at 1s. 9d., before we get the 1s. in Scotland?
This is a possibility, but one certainty is that, if we do not reject the Order, the harmony which is essential between Scottish and English electrical contractors will be gone for at least a decade. Once a differential like this is established in an industry where differentials are intolerable, it will be very difficult to get rid of it.
It is incomprehensible to hon. Members on both sides that the Government were not prepared to make an exception in this case. The Secretary of State for Scotland


is in the Cabinet, surely, to fight for us on these matters. He said that he would shelter Scotland from the harshest effects of the squeeze. Surely this is one of the harsh effects. Our claims need real protection. Why have we not had that protection? Hon. Members with fair minds on both sides will accept that this is a cast-iron case for an exception.
Therefore, why can we not have this elementary justice? In the long term, the effect of such an intolerable injustice on industrial relations in this industry will be very bad and will be there for a long time. There seem no good reasons for rejecting this wage increase. The Government are under a real obligation either to prove their case or to withdraw the Order. Anything else would be totally irresponsible. The Government will be judged, with their policy of industrial relations, on what they say this evening.
I was enormously impressed, as usual, with the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll. He offered a compromise and a prospect of a harmonious settlement of the issue in the House tonight if the Government would say the word. There would be no crowing or recrimination if the Government are prepared to do what is right and sensible and obvious even under the terms of their own White Paper.
The Government have many questions to answer, but one thing which they will not be able to do, if they insist on going ahead with the Order, is to bring back the peace and harmony to this industry which should be there and which is essential for Scotland's industrial development. If the Government believe in that development and in justice and fair play—even if they believe in the terms of their own White Paper—they must agree to what we have asked.

4.17 p.m.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The opening speeches from both sides of the House were a little jaded. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said that he felt rather tired of making similar pleas. These discussions have followed a similar pattern in all our debates on Orders of this kind. We may be discussing a Scottish matter today, but the arguments behind the three speeches so far have been behind the opposition to any of the other Orders.
The basic question is: do we accept that there should be a prices and incomes policy with the backing of Government powers? However we wriggle within the difficulties of order about a particular case, ultimately, if we accept that there should be such a policy and the logic of the original White Paper on the standstill and the subsequent ones, it is almost inevitable that the Government should have taken this decision in this case.
In this case, there was a tentative agreement between the Scottish Electrical Contractors' Association and the E.T.U. for an increase of Is. an hour in May of last year. This agreement was stayed until the result of the English negotiations, which ended on 30th June. At that stage, it would have been impossible, in the terms of the White Paper, to say that there was an existing prior commitment in relation to Scottish electricians. There was a tentative agreement which was not by that time enforceable.
The White Paper, Prices and Incomes Standstill, says, in paragraph 22:
An existing commitment may be defined as any agreement to increase pay or shorten hours or any offer to do so, which has been firmly accepted by or on behalf of the workers concerned on or before 20th July 1966.
Hon. Members may take the view that it was wrong to define an existing commitment in those terms, but once one comes to the conclusion that it is desirable to have a prices and incomes policy, and that in the circumstances of last year it should be backed by statutory powers, normally a line must be drawn somewhere. When one draws such a line in any kind of relationship like this the nearer people are to that line the more unjust will the decision appear. There will be anomalies between those who made a firm agreement on 19th July and those who made a firm agreement on 23rd July, but, granted that a line has to be drawn and it is necessary to support the policy, clearly there was here no existing prior agreement.
I move to the argument about gross anomaly. It has been suggested that there are now in Scotland two basic rates, one for Scottish and one for English electricians; and that there is a Is. an hour difference and that this creates an anomaly which could have been corrected within the terms of the White Paper policy. Despite what my hon. Friend


the Member for Walton said about parity between English and Scottish electricians before July last year, this is not so. There was parity on the hourly wage rates, but in Scotland, as distinct from England, it was possible for the members of the Electrical Contractors' Association to pay site payments and incentive bonuses. Any member of the English association who paid site payments and incentive bonuses was liable to be expelled from the association, but in Scotland there always have been these site payments and incentive bonuses.
There was always a disparity between the earnings in England and the earnings in Scotland.
There was another difference which is absolutely vital to the whole discussion of this problem. It is the question of mates. In England, there was a grade within the industry of electricians' mates, but in Scotland there was no such grade. In England, when the agreement had been reached on 30th June the matter was thereafter referred to the Prices and Incomes Board, which made a detailed report on the English position.

Mr. Heffer: Is my hon. Friend aware that the incentive schemes did not operate on all sites? According to the minutes which I have, the phrase, "in some cases ", is used, so it was not necessarily a principle which was working on every contracting job in Scotland.

Mr. Lyon: This may be true, but nonetheless there is a disparity even in Scotland and certainly between Scotland and England.
The Prices and Incomes Board investigating the agreement which, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) said was an agreement for three years, came to the conclusion that the three-year agreement was not justified within the terms of the prices and incomes policy and the White Papers and that, therefore, it could not stand in toto, but that there had been a prior commitment within the meaning of the prices and incomes policy in relation to the first stage. That was an increase of 13 per cent., Is. an hour, and, therefore, that must stand.
It is interesting to note that the Board decided that even had it been reviewing

the matter before July last year without any question of standstill it would have considered it unjust and unacceptable, but it would have had to accept it because of the principle in the White Paper that an existing commitment would be honoured. Therefore, a fresh agreement would have had to be negotiated. It went on to say that the reason that it would have found 13 per cent, to be unjustified was that there would not be the increase in productivity promised by the unions and accepted by the management when they made the agreement because the major increase in productivity was removal of the practice of having electricians' mates.
The Board assumed from the figures before it that that would mean ultimately a saving of about 9 per cent. Since it would save only 9 per cent., an increase of 13 per cent. was unjustified. It is interesting to consider the 9 per cent. What the English electricians were promising when they made the agreement was a saving by the removal of this practice of 9 per cent., but in Scotland the electricians could not make that claim because in Scotland there has never been the grade of electrician's mate. These questions have to be viewed separately. This is the answer to the main argument in opposition to this Order. In this case, we have to view electricians in Scotland and in England on the same basis. Their background and development of rates and practices could be different.
Although I agree that there has been a movement towards gradual parity, nevertheless there is a basic difference between the two. The Prices and Incomes Board, in paragraph 63 of its Report, referred to this matter. It spoke of the effect on other industries of the agreement and said:
Electricians whose pay might be influenced less directly by the agreement include employees of Scottish electrical contractors and of other contractors outside the N.F.E.A. In Scotland, rates in the electrical contracting industry have in recent years followed those in England and Wales, and the Electrical Contractors Association of Scotland has already made an agreement with the E.T.U. for an increase of 1s. 0d. in journeymen's rates. The agreement—which is not covered by our reference—is for one year only, and this would have been effective from 5th September, 1966, but has been deferred as a result of the Prices and Incomes Standstill. Site payments, which members of the E.C.A. of Scotland were allowed to make, are to be


discontinued. There is no provision for re-grading (mates are not employed in Scotland) or for Joint Industry Boards.
To some extent that may be in conflict with the point I am making, but the Report goes on to say:
We do not consider, therefore, that the agreement between the N.F.E.A. and the E.T.U., or any changes that may be made in it as a result of this Report, should influence future negotiations in Scotland unless there is a closer assimilation between conditions in Scotland and those in England and Wales.
It went on to say, in paragraph (5) of the recommendations, on page 28:
We have received an assurance from the Electrical Trades Union that they would not support claims for corresponding pay increases from their members outside the agreement unless the other conditions of the agreement—
When we are talking about "the agreement" we are talking about the English agreement—
the abolition of mates and regrading—were applied to them as well.
The Prices and Incomes Board had received an assurance from the E.T.U. and could not simply act on the basis of comparability and say that the other parts of the industry could be viewed in the same light as those in England.

Mr. Noble: I understand the argument of the hon. Member he is saying that the English side of the E.T.U. was to have an increase in productivity because it had done away with mates. The Scots apparently did away with mates some years ago and, therefore, reached a higher level of productivity. If so, why should they not be paid the same rate as those in England?

Mr. Lyon: That was not the point. The point is that here was a major disparity between the English and Scottish contracting industries which was to be abolished in England and where, therefore, there was some argument for an increase. In fact, because there had been not only this disparity but others, the two industries must be treated separately.
It was accepted by the E.T.U., as appears from that part of the Board's Report which I have read, that different conditions applied in Scotland from those which applied in England. Mates was not the only one. There were others, mainly incentive and site payments. Therefore, it is not true that, because

they are all electricians, it does not matter whether they are Scottish or English. It always has mattered.
There is no gross anomaly in their being treated differently now. The hon. Member for Cathcart said that on some sites in Scotland the Scottish electricians have had their pay reduced by Is. an hour because of the Order, but that English electricians are having their pay reduced by a reduction of Is. an hour in the site payment. This is because site payments are payable in Scotland, but not in England. There is, therefore, room for this kind of balancing between English and Scottish electricians. If there was no disparity, English electricians would have been paid Is. an hour less than their Scottish counterparts previously.
The Government, in this case, were bound to apply the principles they laid down in the White Paper. If those principles are properly and fairly applied, there is no question but that the Order is amply justified.

4.32 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I must start by saying that I disagree with the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon), because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) said, this is another gross anomaly over pay between Scotland and England which the Secretary of State for Scotland regrettably seems prepared to accept and to defend. In the debate on 2nd March on the question of the pay of local government officers, I and several of my right hon. and hon. Friends said that paragraph 30 of the White Paper on the Period of Severe Restraint provided for action in the case of gross anomalies, such as this and that of the pay of local government officers in Scotland.
This is not a matter where a whole group of workers have missed the date 20th July. Here, by accident, the Scottish electricians have been put months behind their English counterparts. In the debate of 2nd March the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said that paragraph 30 of the White Paper was meant for cases where
there were large groups of men working side by side, one group with a salary increase, and the other without."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd March, 1967; Vol. 742, c. 746.]


In the case of the electricians there are several cases of men working side by side, some employed in England, some employed in Scotland, but all working in Scotland, some receiving the pay increase, and others not. Paragraph 30 surely applies in this case, on the hon. Gentleman's own argument. In this case, the Scottish electricians, on the Government's calculations, missed the date 20th July by one day only.
Now the Government, and the Secretary of State in particular, appear to have been caught in their own net. The only reason which we can see for the Government not now using paragraph 30 to straighten out this anomaly for the electricians is that it would appear then to be grossly unfair to the local government employees, who have already had their pay increase postponed and their application to be treated in the same way as their English counterparts vetoed by the Government.
All this points to the total ineffectiveness of the Secretary of State in removing anomalies harmful to Scotland arising from the Government's prices and incomes dictation; I will not call it a policy. Either the Secretary of State does not try to make his voice heard with his Cabinet colleagues, or they take no notice of him.
No one can blame the employers of the electricians for giving the increase to their staffs in Scotland. They saw the anomalies which would occur if they did not. Now, if the Government are to have their way with the Order, the employers will be compelled to withhold the increase and, unless I misunderstand the position, to withdraw the increases that have already been paid in some cases. Perhaps the Government will confirm whether this is so.
The damage which is being done to Scotland is not only the loss of pay to the electricians and local government officers in Scotland. The damage is also in the loss of confidence in the whole machinery of government which is starting to appear in Scotland. This is hardly surprising, if a system allows such glaring anomalies to occur. There are feelings of frustration which are understandable. The effect is damaging to the whole reputation of the system of central

Government, for no system is proof against dictatorial methods in central Government.
The Order is dictatorial in the worst sense. Instead of using the available escape Clause, the loophole of paragraph 30, to remove the anomaly, the Order positively seeks to impose an accidental anomaly between Scotland and England. What are the Scottish Ministers there for? Why is the Secretary of State not standing up for Scotland? If he cannot do that publicly, why is he not successfully doing it in the Cabinet? This, after all, is the Secretary of State's chief task, and he has clearly failed dismally.
I understand that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour is to reply to the debate. He has replied to many Prayers on prices and incomes Orders in recent weeks. This is not the usual kind of Order. This is not simply a pay dispute affecting the Ministry of Labour or the Department of Economic Affairs. This is, primarily, an anomaly between Scotland and England. The Government should take it far more seriously than they are doing today. Scotland should be able to look to the Secretary of State as the champion of her interests. Normally, one could expect to look to him also for a measure of leadership and inspiration to effort and enterprise in Scotland. Today we do not even have the basic protection from unfair treatment arising even by accident. All Scottish Members, on both sides of the House, should deplore this Order.

4.40 p.m.

Mr, Hugh D. Brown: I apologise for not having heard the opening speeches, because of another commitment. I shall not, therefore, refer to the speech of the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble), though I doubt that there was much new in it in any case because, having got the drift from the non. Members for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) and for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell), I can see that a lot of synthetic indignation is being inflicted on the House today. I am not sure whether this is generated by fear of the electricians or fear of the Scottish Nationalists, though I know that, in the case of the hon. Member for Cathcart, it is the Scottish Nationalists who are worrying him.
Most hon. Members who are prepared to be reasonable and to examine this question recognise that there is a problem. I hope that this is what we on this side at least would try to do. How did the problem arise? What steps were taken by the Ministry of Labour? Incidentally, I wish that the Ministry would speed up its replies to Members' Questions. I have had one outstanding now for between three and four weeks on this very subject. It is not very encouraging to those of us who are prepared to take the trouble, so to speak, to try to explain and justify the Government's policies that there is so much delay on a matter of great public interest in Scotland.
However, be that as it may, it is not enough merely to point out that there is a separate negotiating machinery for Scottish electricians. As my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) pointed out, there are minor differences even within that major difference. These questions are, therefore, difficult for any outsider. This is, perhaps, one of the weaknesses of the whole attempt to bring about a prices and incomes policy. So often, we are involved in debates like this, discussing the general principles as we ought to do, but on specific cases such as the present, one is dealing with precise dates, with ½. an hour on here or ½. an hour less there, site payments, bonuses and the rest, so that it becomes difficult for us to do the job of the trade union in that detailed sense. I shall not attempt to do it.
Discounting the spurious indignation coming from the benches opposite, I recognise that we have here a problem to tackle within the Labour and trade union movement. Hon. Members opposite have nothing to contribute to the discussion. So long as the matter is seen in that context, the context of our trying to evolve a system of prices and incomes which is just—which completely escaped hon. and right hon. Members opposite for 13 years—we shall have the support of the mass of the people. None the less, as I say, it is a difficult job, and everyone recognises that.
Turning now to the specific case of the Scottish electricians, as I see it—I say this frankly—my impression is that there has been a weakness, if it can be called such, on the part of the trade unions and

their members in the past in the sense that they have been, understandably, prepared to take advantage of the better bargaining opportunities in the affluent Midlands, London and the South-East which were created by the Tory Government. There has, therefore, always been an unfortunate tendency for unions which have separate negotiating machinery to try to take advantage of the, so to speak, easier bargaining climate in London and the South and then try to apply it to Scotland. I say that not just as a criticism but in an attempt to understand why so little attention has been paid by many of us who are now raising these matters to the jungle of wage structure and negotiating machinery which at present exists.
On the specific case before us, we are dealing with human beings and, after all, members of the E.T.U. are human beings.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It has taken hon. Members opposite a long time to find that out. We are dealing with human beings, and it is difficult to give people chapter and verse on these questions and say, "It is in the book. Whether you like it or not. it makes sense ". It does not make sense if they cannot see the sense in it.
Attitudes have been created by things which are not strictly relevant but which none the less go to make up the whole picture. There was, for instance, the discussion in May last year about holiday payments and the acceptance by the Inland Revenue that for tax purposes wages would be increased by this amount. Here, I address myself particularly to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who, presumably, will reply—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] All right. It does not matter. I am prepared to concede that one sometimes gets good service from English Ministers.
I should like the Scottish Office to carry out an examination into the tender prices put up by electrical contractors based on the assumption that the wage increase would be paid. The Government may tell us that they are looking into it and trying to do this, that and the other, but these are all matters which were known to the electricians and, therefore, the sense of let-down was greater because they thought that this was, so to speak, in the bag.
We all have an obligation to think carefully on this question. We heard plenty from hon. Members opposite, when the import surcharge was put on, about the rising cost of house building in Scotland and elsewhere because of the surcharge. I want to be reassured that there has been no rise in house building costs simply because of increased charges put on by the contractors which they are not now entitled to include.
What is the bargaining position here? Is it true—is it possible for us to find out—that the E.T.U. had an offer from the Government that the increase would be allowed from July, provided that the threat to strike or the payments which had been introduced illegally by the Scottish contractors were withdrawn? Is there still room for a bit of bargaining? This, basically, is what hon. Members are concerned about.

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: The hon. Gentleman has referred to payments introduced illegally by the employers in Scotland. Does not he accept that there was nothing whatever illegal in introducing the payments?

Mr. Brown: All right. We can split debating hairs.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: No.

Mr. Brown: Let us face the facts. Hon. Members opposite have been at this for about eight months now. As far as I am concerned, it is generally accepted that if there is a dispute which involves the Government in taking this sort of action by Order, the question of legality comes in. If that is the sort of argument which we are to have from hon. Members opposite on the electricians' case, they ought to realise—they have less excuse than anyone to be ignorant—that they do themselves an injustice and they mislead people outside by attempts to suggest that the Scottish contractors did not do anything illegal. [HON. MEMBERS: "They did not."] All right.
It might not have been illegal in the sense that they did not break the law, but every hon. Member knows that the Scottish contractors were just taking this on so as to create a situation in which the unions would be arguing with the Government. Some of us have been

around a good bit in the political movement by now, and we can see these things.
Let us not argue about the constitutional position or the legality of what was done. The truth is that the Scottish contractors should not have paid the money. It did not matter what pressure was put on them by the union, they should have made quite clear at that stage that the dispute, if there was a dispute, was with the Government.

Mr. Stanley Orme: No.

Mr. Brown: Yes, they should. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West can make his own contribution. It is criminal in those circumstances for the employers, knowing that there would be Government action taken, to pay men the £2 a week increase and then take it away, blaming the Government. How naive can hon. Members get? Do they think that this was done on the basis of good faith by the Scottish contractors, looking after their workers?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to accuse a section of the public of behaving criminally in acting in a way which was perfectly in accordance with the law?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Nothing that the hon. Gentleman has said is a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Brown: I have been a firm supporter of the Government and I am not raising these points because of the general application of Orders. I am trying to find out genuinely where the differences are that entitle us to accept a slightly different approach in these circumstances.
Most men are reasonable. If there is any possibility for the Government to try to give room for manoeuvre, to give a date in July, to give the assurance that they will examine thoroughly the differences—if, indeed, there are any—between the Scottish and the English electricians; I am satisfied that with the good will that exists we can overcome some of the problems.
I should like to be advised on the date and the kind of detailed negotiation that has already taken place between the E.T.U. and the Government. We are


entitled to know that, I am not satisfied that the members of the union know all about what has been going on in this regard. I should like to be satisfied that there is a genuine attempt to recognise that there is an anomaly, an injustice, even though not in terms of £2 a week, arising from the fact that people doing an identical job are getting different rates of pay. If that can be recognised, even though it just means that we get an assurance that the matter will be examined properly, the Government will come out of this with some credit.

4.52 p.m.

Mr. John Peyton: I should like, first, to tell my right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble), on the Front Bench, how much I appreciate the fact that the Opposition are taking up a Supply day to discuss two of the Government's Prices and Incomes Orders, because I believe that they are of far more importance than has yet been accorded to them in our debates.
I do not say this in an offensive way to the Parliamentary Secretary, but I think it a great pity that the Government have not seen fit to put up a more senior Minister. He has been sitting there—goodness knows, he has a weary task!—listening to the debates on these problems, but he has very few notes on some of the questions asked by some of his hon. Friends behind him. On this occasion he has had the moral support, if one can call it that, of various denizens of the Foreign Office—I mean of the Scottish Office. [Laughter..] That was a Freudian slip—I give the hon. Gentleman that. He has had the moral support of various denizens of the Scottish Office on this occasion, when he has had nothing before. Therefore, I suppose that he is on the whole, by a very small margin, better off.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to answer some of the substantial points that have been made. His hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) observed this afternoon that this was probably the strangest of all the Orders that we have had before us so far. I think I am right in saying that the last time we debated one of these Orders one of his Friends described it as the "grimmest" Order. We are likely to get various superlatives attached to each Order in turn as it comes up.

I very much sympathise with the question put by the hon. Member for Walton, who asked why there have not been more strikes against the Government's prices and incomes policy. I can see that there is a very great tide of indignation against this thoroughly unreasonable, unintelligible policy.
The First Secretary of State should be answering the debate. I said the other day that it is very unfair that a Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour should be defending the lunatic lucubrations of the Department of Economic Affairs. If we cannot have the First Secretary here, we shall have to put up with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, but let us have one or both of them here. It would be interesting to have the First Secretary here this afternoon to ask him how he applies the remark he made to the Scottish T.U.C. last February to this debate. He said that an incomes policy means progressive injection of greater justice and greater fairness. Had he made that speech last summer, when he could not have foreseen, or could say that he had not foreseen, the full consequences of his policy, that might have been justifiable. But he must have blinders round both his ears and eyes now if he can really still describe the incomes policy as contributing to fairness and justice when doing this sort of thing.
Your eyes are on me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I am erring I am only following the example of hon. Members opposite, though I know that that is no excuse.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), with eloquence which always impresses me, referred to the question of gross anomalies and I want to return to that now. The White Paper indicates the possibility—and I very much hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will deal specifically with this point—that there might be circumstances of gross anomaly which would justify a particular increase being allowed. If that is the case, could we be given an example of a gross anomaly? I find it very hard to imagine a grosser anomaly than English and Scottish workers doing the same job side by side being paid at different rates because of the intervention of Government policy. It seems to me to be utter madness.
The hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon), who made a speech and then dashed out, produced and quoted at length the Prices and Incomes Board Report. I thought that it was a very painful punishment to a patient House of Commons that we should be inflicted with that awful stuff. It is fast becoming my firm conviction that Hell is undoubtedly run by a sort of amalgam of the Prices and Incomes Board and "Neddy". I am certain that nothing ever gets done there, but chaos is obviously part of the treatment, and these two bodies must contribute their share of annoyance and vexation to the unfortunate victims in a way which almost passes understanding.
I have often heard my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite inveighing at length against injustices to Scotland. On many of those occasions, as an ordinary English Member I have not only been able to remain in my seat, but also to remain dry-eyed, unmoved. But on this occasion hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies seem to me to have a first-class grievance. I entirely agree with everything my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart said. I was not sure that I entirely followed the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan {Mr. Hugh D. Brown) in the inwardness of his argument, but my hon. Friend was good enough to explain to me that whereas the Scottish Nationalists did very badly in Cathcart yesterday they did very well in Provan.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made progress so far with only the slightest reference to the Order. I must ask him to deal with the Order.

Mr. Peyton: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have been following this debate with great care and I have observed the great latitude accorded by the Chair on this occasion, presumably because we are not debating this matter late at night. I shall not trespass unduly upon your patience, but I hope that I shall not have rules applied to me that have not been applied to others so far.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It may have been on that account that I have not pressed the hon. Gentleman earlier, but I must ask him to come to the Order.

Mr. Peyton: The next heading on the scrap of paper I have before me is, "The Order itself ". I believe that, when such instruments are put before Parliament, they should be firmly enshrined in the record. For that purpose, I do not intend to read out the whole Order, but I invite the attention of the House to paragraph 4(3) and to bear in mind that the Order governs the wages and working conditions of ordinary people. I ask hon. Members opposite who represent them what they think of this deathless prose. I quote:
In a case where the normal working hours for the work are such as to fall within the meaning of 'normal working hours' given by sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to the said Act of 1963 (that is to say, where the contract of employment provides for a fixed number or minimum number of hours which exceeds the number of hours without overtime) remuneration for work in the number of hours without overtime, and for work in the number of hours with overtime, shall be considered separately, except that if the number of hours without overtime at the later time is less, the rate of remuneration for work in the number of hours with overtime at the later time for a period equal to the difference shall be compared with the rate of remuneration for work in the number of hours without overtime at the earlier time.

Mr. Cyril Bence: Explain it.

Mr. Peyton: It is not part of my rôle to explain such mumbo-jumbo. That is the privilege of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary and it is the privilege of hon. Members opposite who support such Orders in the Lobby every now and again to explain the meaning in detail to their constituents.

Mr. G. Campbell: My hon. Friend will notice also that there is, as usual, something called an "Explanatory Note", but that it is clearly stated:
This Note is not part of the Order.
Is not that significant?

Mr. Peyton: I have been here far too long ever to give any attention to an Explantory Note from official sources, because one learns that, if one reads a Note of that kind, all that can happen is a deepening of the mystery. I do not propose to weary the House with an explanation of this one.
I am sorry to embarrass the Joint Parliamentary Secretary with my sympathy,


but it seems hard that he, a comparatively inexperienced Minister, should be called upon to defend this legalistic and hair-splitting operation. I find it intolerable that the consequences of the policy in this Order should be such that English workers side by side with Scotsmen doing the same job get different rates. This seems to me quite unacceptable.
I realise that people grow accustomed to Governments which fall short of their promises. People are no longer shocked as they should be when Governments do not live: up to the letter and spirit of their undertakings. But it is quite another matter when Governments by their policy, as in this case, procure the breach of a promise by someone else, because that really does damage.
I hope that hon. Members opposite will accept from me that I feel every bit as strongly as they do and that this is not a piece of political opportunism. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is always very dangerous to attribute insincerity. I did not do so myself and I hope that hon. Members will give me the credit for sincerity. I mean it when I say that this is not a political opportunism as far as I am concerned.
I believe that this kind of Government intervention is of the utmost danger both because it is impracticable and inefficient and because it sows deep into the community the feeling that no one is to be trusted and no promise relied upon. That is why I come here and speak every time such Orders are debated. I very much regret that we should be called upon to adjudicate upon matters in such detail. It is wrong for Governments to lend themselves to this kind of thing. It means that Governments must shoulder the burden, the full burden, of all that is unfair in industrial relations. It means that Government influence for good is lessened and that the contribution for harm is enormously increased.

Mr. Archie Manuel: The hon. Gentleman is draping himself in a white sheet about Government pledges. Does he not remember that Sir Winston Churchill said from the Government Front Bench, when challenged about broken election pledges, "You can stick a dozen into your programme. It does not mean that you have to carry any of them out"?

Mr. Peyton: This is the whole burden of my song. I have said that Governments have frequently broken promises and that the public have got used to it. Of course, it may be a shocking thing and it is why the reputation of politicians is not quite what we desire. The people are accustomed to Governments and politicians promising too much and to do things which, in the event, they are unable to do.
What I am protesting about is that it is far graver for the Government so to intervene in human relations as to procure breaches of promise by other people. I believe that Orders such as this are first-class examples of the fate which will befall the Government—any Government—and deservedly, who meddle in the details of a complex society such as ours and attempt to interfere in the very basic relations which exist between employers and employed.

5.9 p.m.

Mr. Bob Brown (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West): I do not propose to take up much time because many points I intended to make have been put, more eloquently than I could have done, in two excellent speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) and Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown). Nevertheless, it is fair to make some comparisons on this issue, but before I do so I cannot help observing that the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) must surely have been talking humbug when he said how "big" the Opposition were in giving up a Supply Day to discuss these two important Prayers.

Mr. Peyton: The hon. Gentleman would do well not to bandy accusations of humbug about in a debate such as this. Quite apart from anything else, I merely said that I thought the Opposition Front Bench had been wise to give up a Supply day in order to discuss issues which are of very great importance to many of our people.

Mr. Brown: If I might re-emphasise the point, it smacks of hypocrisy for the hon. Member to suggest in his speech, as I understood it, that there was something "big" about the Opposition giving up a Supply day to debate these most important Orders. It is surely plumbing the very depths. I would have thought that


the Opposition would be more likely to be discussing the two Orders on Scottish issues, appealing to the electors of England in the municipal elections next week.
It is regrettable that the electricians in Scotland have been caught by 24 hours. Nevertheless, any type of legislation that this House introduces must be adhered to, if it is to be effective. Sympathetic though we may be towards people who have been caught by one day, I feel that fair-minded people must agree with this.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) is not here, because I want to refer to what he said. He laid great stress on the fact that the trade union movement had seen the need to seek national wage agreements, because of the annoyance caused by differing area rates. I agree with him on this.
But he went on to say that in this instance parity was established by the two agreements. Now, he said, we have the wicked, immoral Labour Government undoing this parity. This is not the case. My hon. Friend the Member for York referred to site bonuses, but we have not even got parity in this country. My hon. Friend the member for Walton ought to know this better than anyone else. He ought to know that electrical contractors in London and on Merseyside pay rates different from those in the rest of the country.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: In fairness to the hon. Member for Walton, he said that what had been established was parity in the basic rate for electrical contractors in England and Scotland. This is the point. It is nothing to do with earning site bonuses. It is the basic rate only, and in fairness to the hon. Gentleman that is what he said.

Mr. Brown: If we are to argue about basic rates, then the lesson to be learned from this debate is that it is high time that we accepted the fact that these dribs and drabs, up and down the country, are no good for the movement as a whole. When we were talking about wage rates, it is as well to remember that the Scottish housewife pays as much for her loaf of bread as a housewife in the Midlands or the South-East.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walton also referred to political strikes. I rather felt that he was sorry that there had not been more political strikes over the price and incomes policy. My hon. Friend ought to know that responsible trade unionists have always held the view that political battles can never be won by industrial action. It is quite wrong for anyone to suggest that the trade union movement takes industrial action on political questions. For generations, the movement has been built on the basis that industrial action shall be taken for industrial ends. I would never deny any trade union the right to take that kind of action.
The English agreement was signed before 30th July and this, within the terms of Government policy, clearly allows for a deferment of six months, which has happened. Against this, the Scottish agreement was out of time by 24 hours. It is regrettable that this should have happened, but, having said that, within the terms of the agreement, it is fair that it should be deferred until the period of severe restraint ends on 1st July. This will be a deferment of four months as against the full deferment in the case of the English agreement.
Having made these remarks, I cannot help feeling that the Scottish electricians, and other groups of workers who have fallen victim, if one likes to use that word, to the Government's prices and incomes policy, would be feeling very much happier if there had been some proportion of Statutory Instruments laid before this House demanding a temporary stoppage on price increases, which we all know are taking place far too often. If there is any genuine concern among Scottish electricians, English electricians, Scottish plumbers, Welsh plumbers or any other section of workers, it is over this fact, that there have been perhaps 10 times the number of Orders laid before this House affecting wages as compared with those affecting prices. I appeal to my hon. Friend to consult his friends at the Department of Economic Affairs to see that action can be taken on prices as well as on incomes.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. George Younger: I was particularly glad that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown)


reminded us that we were talking about wage agreements which affect people. I wondered if he would pass on this information. in case it has not yet reached him, to his hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon).
In the course of his speech I began to wonder if he was under the impression that he was addressing an academic seminar, or some other academic body, because he had to dig deep into the intricacies, technicalities and legalities of this matter in order to develop what he thought was a defence of Government action in bringing in this Order. I would ask him respectfully, because I know that he spoke with sincerity, if he would remember that we are dealing with people's lives and their remuneration.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: May I say that I have consistently supported the prices and incomes policy, because I sincerely believe that it is the most viable way of improving the standard of living of every man and woman in the country. Because I believe this devoutly, I am prepared to do this each time an Order comes before the House.

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that clear. This brings me directly to my next point, which is that we are not discussing whether we approve or disapprove of the prices and incomes policy. There are obviously differing views on this. My hon. Friends have made their views absolutely clear. But we are not discussing that. We can start our discussion from the fact that there is a prices and incomes policy, that it is enshrined in an Act and that it is being operated.
My second point also follows on the hon. Gentleman's remarks. We are not debating whether it was legally right that this Order should be introduced. From the facts clearly presented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble), it is established that in terms of the Prices and Incomes Act the ratification of this agreement took place one day after 20th July.

Mr. Peyton: Does my hon. Friend realise how fortunate he is? He has the opportunity, which the rest of us have not had, of directing his question directly to the foster father of all this nonsense—the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

Mr. Younger: I thank my hon. Friend, I only wish that my hon. Friend, with his superior ability, were able to deploy the argument on the right hon. Gentleman with all his customary eloquence and charm.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Frederick Lee): May I inform the hon. Gentleman that the Act was on the Statute Book long before I had anything to do with it?

Mr. Younger: We all agree that, technically, this agreement was ratified one day after 20th July. But we are discussing the method by which the Government are operating their own Act and introducing their own Order. It is open to the Government to say—and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary may say it in the course of the standard speech which he makes on these Orders—that, whatever legislation is produced, a firm point in time has to be decided at which it operates and that wherever we draw the line there are bound to be anomalies on either side of it. I entirely accept that view.
But when the legislation was introduced last July—and I am sure mat hon. Members will all recall this—one of the first cries made from this side of the House and, indeed, by hon. Members opposite was, "This may be a policy which makes some sense on paper. But think of the incredible anomalies which will result." Hon. Members on both sides, on television, in the newspapers, in weekend speeches and in speeches in the House, said that there would be anomaly after anomaly.
We were as rapidly told by the present Foreign Secretary, by his colleagues m the Government and those who helped him to pilot the Bill through the House that it was accepted that there would be anomalies in the operation of this firm dateline, but there was a clause in the White Paper which would allow such anomalies to be dealt with by a good, gracious and benevolent Government. The present Foreign Secretary, with his customary eloquence, did not entirely convince us that he intended to iron out every anomaly, but the fact that he was able to say that and to point to the relevant paragraph in his White Paper went a long way to allay the fears which many of us felt that by passing the Bill we were creating anomalies which were so absurd


that they would not be acceptable to people who found themselves at the receiving end of the Orders.
What I have said narrows down our argument to a very small area, namely, why the Government, having accepted that there would be anomalies and having given themselves the power to iron out such anomalies, consider that the electrical contractors' pay agreement is not a gross anomaly. If we can establish that point, we shall have done a useful day's work.
There are various reasons why the Parliamentary Secretary should, even at this 11th hour—it is really after the 11th hour—ask himself whether he has possibly made a serious mistake in refusing to regard the agreement as an anomaly. First—and I do not make much of this because legally it has no weight at all—do not let us forget that ratification of the agreement was late by only one day. Admittedly, that put it on the wrong side of the line, but the fact that it was only one day late should start us off with sympathy for those who will be badly affected by the Order.
Secondly, it was not as if the negotiations had ended comparatively recently to 20th July. They had not ended on 10th, 5th or 1st July. As far back as 9th May it was well established and known by all those who took part in the negotiations—the employers side and the unions side—that the parties concerned had come together and decided that this increase was right and had upheld it thereafter for the one or two very good and understandable reasons which my right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll detailed. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) added the extra point, which was so well known, although I dare say that it would not hold up in any court, that it was so well understood that this amount had been agreed in all but the final stamping of the document that arrangements had been made to alter all the holiday stamp payments. This is a most powerful reason for sympathetically considering this case as an outstanding and gross anomaly.
The Government, having given themselves the power and having accepted that this situation might arise, have not had

the courage to make what would undoubtedly have been a difficult decision and to stand up and say, as they should have done and should do now, "We always knew that there would be anomalies arising from the Act. We maintain, with all the advice available to us, that this is an anomaly and we are therefore prepared to stand against all those who criticise us and use the powers which we gave ourselves and allow this increase to be made ".
Of course, that would not be easy for the Government or for the Parliamentary Secretary. No doubt, workers in other industries would say, "This claim has been allowed. Therefore, our claim should be allowed." But is the hon. Gentleman so spineless and flabby that he is unable to stand up to the claims which might be made by other people if this decision had gone the other way? I have not noticed that members of the Government, whatever their faults from time to time, are so craven and frightened of standing up for themselves that they could not easily have stood up for themselves in those circumstances.
I have a horrible suspicion that the actual decision not to regard this as an anomaly was taken in haste, perhaps without realisation of its full enormity, and that hon. Members opposite now find themselves trapped within it and unable to take what I would regard as the very small risk of looking somewhat foolish and stepping down in response to pressure. It is understandable that they should be reluctant to do that, but I assure the Parliamentary Secretary that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) said, there is no desire on this side of the House, and nor will there be if he decides to climb down, to crow over it, or to make it appear that it is a monstrous climb-down which should bring about the disappearance of the Government. It could be done with complete honour and with common sense, and it could be done virtually painlessly. Would it not be worth while to make a first-time effort and for the Government to realise that, having made a wrong decision, they should be prepared to step down and say so? I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that would increase rather than decrease his stature.
It is not as though this situation was a temporary local difficulty which will blow over in a week or two and be forgotten for ever. The ill-effects of the anomaly now existing between Scottish and English electrical workers working on the same site and working side by side are already apparent and will be reflected for many months to come.
There is the effect on industrial relations. No one can doubt that industrial relations, relations between unions and management and between men and management, cannot long survive the lack of confidence which may result from a difference such as this. My hon. Friend mentioned delays in work in progress and the serious matter of the school in his constituency which is being delayed by the unrest caused by this ridiculous decision. There is the more serious question of emigration, and we cannot shut our eyes to that and pretend that it does not exist.
There are innumerable ways in which people will get round the effects of the Order. I shall not give the examples which have been given to me, but I can assure the House that the number of examples of ways of getting round the Order which I have been given goes into double figures. It would be wrong to detail them in case that encourages others to follow those examples, but no hon. Member need think for as much as 30 seconds that the Order will work effectively in a water-tight manner for it will not. It is already riddled with every kind of method of getting round it and, although introduced with so much pain and grief, it is already ineffective and will remain so far as long as it applies. Is it worth all this business of bringing it in?
There is also the subject of future negotiations. Negotiations between unions and managment and between workers and management in a works or on a national scale depend on confidence and trust on both sides. Have the Government thought carefully of the likely result on future negotiations all over the country if all the time it is felt that because of some Government crisis, or a balance of payments crisis, or a mini-Budget, there may suddenly be introduced a "20th July "—whatever the date might be? If I were a union negotiator in a year or two's time and were under

pressure to come to an agreement with the employers' side on a wage settlement which was going through the customary process, sometimes occupying several months, of reaching agreement, negotiations and ratification, I would be hurrying on to make sure that I got the stamp on the document at the earliest possible moment in case a "20th July" intervened and nullified the work of months.
The Parliamentary Secretary ought to be particularly concerned with this aspect, because lack of confidence will last through future negotiations for a long time if people are caught in this retrospective way. I hope that this will not be so, but I hope that in the Ministry this is something which is being seriously considered.
The hon. Member for Provan made his customary reference which comes in many of his speeches—I do not dislike it—to synthetic indignation. It has become one of his little terms and it comes every now and again. I can assure him that there is no trace of synthetic indignation about this matter on this side of the House. Secondly, if, as I expect, he has met members of the Electrical Trades Union who are involved in this situation, he will know that there is not a trace of synthetic indignation among them.
If he and his hon. Friends, many of whom dislike the Order very much to judge by many things, including speeches today, were prepared not only to speak their minds, as the hon. Gentleman rightly did, but to carry their disapproval to its logical conclusion and vote their convictions, there would probably be none of these prices and incomes Orders—certainly only a very few. If they had made clear that attitude and their intention to resist these Orders, the Government would never have reached the stage of putting through those which are most anomalous and difficult to defend.
The hon. Member for Provan has great responsibility on his shoulders—not his alone, but with his hon. Friends—because they have it in their power to straighten out this matter if they so wish. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will soberly reflect before 7 o'clock this evening on the fact that if there were anything like the semblance of a free vote at the end of this, as at the end of many other debates of this sort, he would not have


the remotest chance of getting the Order through the House.
When that situation occurs, it is a serious matter for Parliament and something which all hon. Members, particularly hon. Members on the Government side should seriously consider. Is it worth putting through this ridiculous and unjustifiable Order when we know that a majority of hon. Members are against it? The Parliamentary Secretary would be well advised to think yet again even at this late hour and withdraw the Order.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. Neil Carmichael (Glasgow, Wood-side): By this time, most of the details of the Order have been covered, but I should like to take up what the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) said about synthetic indignation. He linked his side of the House with members of the E.T.U., many of whom have been on strike, and suggested that the synthetic indignation of the one was related to that of the other. The lads affected by this Order in Scotland are genuinely indignant and I only wish that politics were such that we could have indignation from hon. Members opposite equally genuine about an Order such as this.
This is also true of the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton). He made a most interesting and entertaining speech, but while he and many of his hon. Friends can work up a certain amount of self-righteousness, there is no doubt that they are nevertheless using this occasion almost purely politically.

Mr. Peyton: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is ever capable of attributing to political opponents with whom he is in disagreement a measure of sincerity, or does he regard sincerity as something which only he and those who agree with him possess?

Mr. Carmichael: I frequently find great sincerity in my political opponents, but on an Order such as this and in circumstances such as this, it would be asking almost too much of hon. Members opposite to suggest that they ought not to jump on a political weapon with which to hit the Government.
I feel sad about this Order. I have all along supported the principle of a productivity, prices and incomes policy,

but I find it difficult to support the operation of such a policy when I feel that its main purpose is to make something tidy rather than to see that justice is done—leaving aside entirely the question of ensuring that it is being applied with common sense.
A number of people have discussed at great length what occurred during the pre-negotiation period in this case. My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon), in an erudite and exhaustive speech—the sort of speech which we have become accustomed to receiving from him in this type of debate; he always goes into a matter with thoroughness and care—was arguing rather on the wrong terms. The decision has already been made that the extra Is. an hour would be granted. I will not go into all the details of the case, although it is worth remembering that an increase in holiday stamps had been decided and only the date of the meeting when the agreement would be signed remained outstanding. It is ironic to think that the members of the Electrical Contractors Association and the representatives of the Union were probably looking at their diaries to see when the meeting at which the agreement would be signed should be held. Indeed, that meeting might have taken place on 20th July.
Because of these considerations we must examine this matter carefully. It is elementary to say that, whatever line is drawn, someone will fall on one side of it and someone will fall on the other. Nevertheless, there are many peculiar circumstances in this case. The main point to remember is that we are dealing not with a static group of workers, but with workers who must move from job to job. Indeed, it is essential that they do this if we are to maintain a high standard of living and a high rate of building.
I disagree with the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) who tried to draw a comparison between this Order and the one which we will be debating later. No such comparison can be made, for the later Order concerns workers who live and work in one part of the country and are getting the rate for the job in that area. I have no doubt that if those workers moved south to a new job they would get the rate established in that area. Equally, if a worker moves to a job in Scotland he gets the Scottish rate.
In the case we are considering we have the ridiculous situation in which Scottish electricians are working side by side with English electricians who have been employed at head offices in York, Newcastle or elsewhere—while the Scottish electricians were employed on the site in Scotland or from the Scottish sub-office—and there is 1s an hour difference between the pay they receive.
There are many instances of workers with 1s. an hour difference in pay borrowing each other's tools to do the job that they are both doing. There is total inter-changeability in this type of employment and that is why this case must be given special consideration. This type of inter-changeability has not applied to many of the other Orders we have discussed in the last few months.
I urge the Minister to ignore a great deal of what is said on this score by hon. Gentlemen opposite, irrespective of their motives. We have experienced the way in which they make political capital out of many things. He should, on the other hand, give great thought to the remarks of my hon. Friends who have spoken on behalf of these workers because he knows that we are not attempting to make political capital out of this.
Anomalies exist in rates of pay throughout the trade union movement, but the men accept these anomalies as part of the bargaining machinery. The anomaly we are considering is different because it is imposed from outside by the Government—and a Labour Government at that—and is having a great effect not only on those from whom we get our traditional support but in whom the traditional roots of the Labour Party are founded.
I say with sadness that this is one Order that I cannot, in common sense, support. I urge the Minister not to give a stock reply but to get down to the fundamentals of the problem and to examine the case thoroughly. If he does, he will realise that he and the Government would not lose face by changing their minds. Indeed, the Labour Movement as a whole would be injected with new life and vitality, particularly in Scotland. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite need not sneer about the results of the local elections. We did very well yesterday, considering the

opposition we had from the mass media of the other side.
If my hon. Friend will reconsider the Order in the light of what my hon. Friends and I have said, he will see that we are right and that the Government should change their mind. This would give these workers the feeling that the Government belong to the people, that it is their Government. I am sure that such a decision would represent a turning point in the fortunes of the Labour Party.

5.46 p.m.

Earl of Dalkeith: It also seems a little sad when one finds hon. Gentlemen opposite whose loyalty—perhaps admirable loyalty, but sometimes, one feels, blind loyalty—to their party prevents them from doing what would be the normal and logical thing to do, which is to agree with the Opposition occasionally on the simple merits of the justice of a case. Instead, they take a different line, as we have heard in at least three speeches from hon. Gentlemen opposite today. They accuse the Opposition of being synthetic and spurious in their indignation and of humbug and hypocrisy. I am not a psycho-analyst, but I suggest that this could be interpreted as a sign of weakness in their argument.
We are dealing with a simple and straightforward case. My hon. Friends have adduced the arguments involved so well that I need not repeat them. I will, therefore, not make a long speech. As with so many Orders of this type, the Government are being masochistic to a degree which surprises me. The hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) summed up the position well when he said that when a line is drawn in legislation, the nearer one gets to it the greater appears to be the injustice. He was admitting that there is some element of injustice here—whether or not it is a great element is a matter of opinion—and this, therefore, highlights the Government's masochistic behaviour. It shows that when the Government make a bed of nails, they tend to lie on it, come what may.
In drawing up the procedure whereby they decide whether or not to implement an order the Government allow themselves a certain amount of discretion.


My hon. Friends are merely asking that they use that discretion. Even the most sincere and devout supporters of the Government agree that this must be regarded as a borderline case. Indeed, we are discussing what my hon. Friends and I regard as a cast-iron case, let alone a borderline one.
I hope that when the Minister is considering his verdict tonight—and I trust that he had not made up his mind before entering the Chamber—he will consider some aspects involved in pursuing his present course. What will be the effect upon the Scottish economy? The hon. Gentleman has a junior Minister from the Scottish Office beside him, and I am sure that he will tell him that the Scottish economy needs skilled men if we are to progress into the future. If we create a deliberate anomaly between England and Scotland, such as there is in the present case, we are almost certain to do the reverse of what we are trying to do, which is to keep the skilled, trained Scotsman in Scotland and not try and drive him over the border.
I should like the Government to consider the effect upon morale in Scotland and the attitude of the population to Westminster government. By having this anomaly, the Government are merely enlarging upon the apprehensions, which are already showing themselves in recent local election results, that Scotland is getting a raw deal.
It is always difficult to be certain how one defines the word "gross", and it is equally difficult to say whether or not this is a gross anomaly. However, this is admitted to be an anomaly, and when the Government adopt a rigid and unyielding attitude, they are bound to breed a lack of respect for the whole of their incomes policy.
If it is to be succesful, even the most rigid statutory incomes policy must depend upon a considerable element of good will from the general public in recognising that it is fair. When it is so blatantly unfair, honest men and women are driven to deceptive ways of getting round it. Some of my hon. Friends have already mentioned the various loopholes which are available. There are a number of ways in which these difficulties can be overcome. By pushing forward an Order like the present one, the Govern-

are encouraging honest men and women to cheat.
I feel sorry for the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, because he has an odious task to perform. It is possibly one of the most odious for any Minister in the Government, and I am always full of praise for the cheerful expression which he manages to keep on his face on these occasions. He must be becoming hardened to the pleas and arguments put forward from these benches. I only hope that he is not so hardened that he is past praying for or praying against and that, occasionally, he will try to believe that there is a genuine feeling on this side of the House not to make party political capital. He can be certain that we shall not crow about it if he relents. This is a genuinely felt case, and if he were to show good sense and accept our arguments, I am sure that he would earn a great deal of respect not only in the House but in Scotland.

5.54 p.m.

Mr. John Robertson: From time to time, one finds oneself in strange company. Today, I find myself agreeing almost entirely with the speeches which have been made by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. However, if they wonder why hon. Members on this side of the House doubt their sincerity, it is because we have long memories. We can remember some of the speeches which they made in the past and, therefore, we are entitled to be suspicious about their intentions today.
Having said that, we all have to thank the Opposition for giving us the opportunity to discuss this matter at length. I do not like the prices and incomes policy of the Government. I have never liked it, and I said at the time that the reason why I did not like it was that it would give rise to the very situation which we face today.
This is a preposterous situation. It is not just a matter of Scottish electricians not being paid while English electricians are. People employed by Scottish electrical contractors are not being paid while others employed by English contractors are being paid. Scotsmen are employed by English companies and, conversely, Englishmen are employed by Scottish companies, because some Scottish companies have contracts in England and


engage their labour locally. So it is much more complex than a mere difference between people employed in Scotland and people employed in England.
It has been suggested that it is the fault of the trade unions for not getting a national agreement. That, too, is preposterous. A trade union does not determine these questions. It discovers the body of employers with whom it must negotiate, and it negotiates. It cannot say to an employer that it wants a national agreement. If satisfactory arrangements can be made with the Scottish contractors, why should the trade union worry about the body with whom it should negotiate? Certainly no decision of a trade union can afflict one set of negotiations. It may be that, in the past, the Scottish electrical contractors felt that they could negotiate a lower rate than that being paid in England, but that is no longer the case.
Some comment has been made about earnings and rates. However, surely a trade union can only be concerned about negotiating a rate, and that was done. For at least five years there has been a clear understanding, nonetheless, that on basic wages the rates would be the same, and it did not require further negotiations for any agreement to be reached. But custom and practice have meant that the larger body of employers involved in the English negotiations determined what the increase should be, and that was then applied by the Scottish employers. To say that the present situation is the fault of the trade unions is to tell trade unionists that if they cannot get a national agreement they should strike and create trouble until they do. Who are we to tell employers and trade unions what they should do? We have no right to do that. I suggest that we should let the trade unions look after their own business because, in all probability, they know more about it than any Member of Parliament.
In their White Paper the Government have the opportunity to use their judgment in matters of this kind and to see that anomalies are not created, with a difference of a shilling between men on the same site doing the same job depending on an agreement being signed 24 hours later. If the words "gross anomaly" mean anything, they must cover a case of this kind. If they do not, they are meaningless, because this is a gross anomaly.
I am biased about this. A long time ago I forecast that this kind of situation would arise. I am not happy at having to make this kind of speech. I am not happy about criticising my own Front Bench, but I am asking them to listen to reason and not to perpetuate this kind of situation, because we shall pay for it in the future if we do. The Government have an opportunity to give the electricians a fair deal, and if they do it will pay dividends for everyone.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I trust that the House will bear with me for a few moments if I deal with the form of the Order rather than with the merits of it. This debate, and indeed the speech of the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. John Robertson), has shown very clearly that there are extreme anomalies in the application of the Order. The hon. Gentleman said that English trade union members who are employed in Scotland will receive the English wage rates, yet Scottish trade union members who are employed in Scotland will not receive rates equal to the English rates, which they would have received under the agreement to which the Order applies.
Where is that said in the Schedule to the Order? It says:
Remuneration for work performed under any contract of employment"—
and I stress the word "any"—
the terms of which include, expressly or by implication, any of the terms relating to increases in wage rates agreed between the Electrical Contractors' Association of Scotland and the Electrical Trades Union
on a certain date.
The strict interpretation of that Schedule would apply, I suggest, to the employment of English trade union members in Scotland, but the debate has shown that there is this anomaly in the application of the Order. I go further than calling it an anomaly. I think that there is a complete mystery about the Schedule. I do not believe that anyone can know to whom the Order applies, what trades, what grades, and therefore what individuals, what employers and employees, and what wage rates; and yet those who disobey this great unknown may be liable to a fine of £500.
The Order is made under Section 29 of the Prices and Incomes Act, 1966, and subsection (6) of that Section says:
An Order under subsection (1) above may frame the descriptions of remuneration to which this section applies in any way
I fear that the draftsman of this Statutory Instrument has taken that literally and has defined or described the remuneration certainly in any way, and in a way which is so vague that nobody can tell to whom it applies.
Let us look again at the description of remuneration in the Schedule to the Order. It does not define to whom the Schedule is to apply. It does not specify the employees, or the employers. On almost every other occasion when Orders of this kind have come before the House there has been a clear definition of either the employers, or the employees, and in many cases, the grades have been set out.
The Explanatory Note to the Order says:
Copies of the Agreement referred to in the Schedule to this Order are available for inspection between 10 a.m. and 12 noon and between 2 p.m. and 5 p.m. on any weekday (excluding Saturdays) at the offices of the Ministry of Labour.…
What was available for inspection at the offices of the Ministry of Labour was not an agreement at all, nor a copy of an agreement, as stated in this Explanatory Note. What was available for inspection was a copy of the minute of a Joint Meeting of the Labour Committee of the Electrical Contractors' Association of Scotland and the E.T.U. held at 23 Heriot Row, Edinburgh, on 21st July, 1966, and, as has been said already, that was immediately after 20th July, 1966, the vital day when the wage freeze was announced.
This Minute of a meeting, which apparently the Minister thinks constitutes an agreement, starts by saying that the representatives of the E.T.U.
wished …to reach formal agreement on wage rates, irrespective of the Prime Minister's statement.
The minute goes on to refer to some previous minute of a meeting held on 9th May, 1966, the draft of which had been sent to the union, and had been amended on several points. The Minute refers to the Scottish Agreement and to the English one. Neither the previous minute of a meeting, nor the English or Scottish agreements, is available for

Members to inspect. These are part, apparently, of the agreement reached on 21st July, but they are not the agreement referred to in the Schedule or in the Explanatory Note.
The Minute goes on to say that
the Association were willing to concede the increase of Is. per hour on 5th September, 1966 and … the Association was willing to give consideration to other Clauses in the English Agreement.
but we do not know what other clauses, because the English agreement has not been produced.
The contractors' representatives were asked how much of the English agreement they were prepared to accept, and then there followed a discussion about incentive schemes. The union representatives then withdrew, and on their return they stated that
the Union representatives accepted the E.C.A. of Scotland reservations to the draft Minute "—
which, as I say again, has not been produced either to the House, or to anyone who wishes to inspect this so-called agreement—
as it now stood but they wished to raise one or two points.
In fact, they raised three points, first, on the date on which the 1s. increase was to start, secondly, on jointer's wages, and, thirdly, on the five-day week.
There then follows the statement that
the undernoted decisions were reached.
Only one of these decisions relates to wage rates. This is the one which says that
the operative date of the increase of 1s. per hour shall be Monday, 5th September, 1966.
The other decisions are about material relating to jointers' wages, the consideration of a five-day week, and the setting up of a joint committee to consider incentive schemes.
This document is referred to as an agreement. It is impossible to understand from those words alone, what the agreement is. The whole reference to this in the Schedule to the Order is so vague that one cannot tell what the contracts of employment are on which any decision or agreement was reached, what the wage rates are to which the increase applies, or who the employers or employees are to whom the decisions or agreement apply.
It is true, as I quoted from the Act, that the descriptions of remuneration can be made in any way in the Order, but surely they must be descriptions? They cannot be just a vague statement, an indefinite indication, of what may be an agreement between the parties. This is of great importance, because, under Section 29(5) of the Act,
If an employer contravenes this section he shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, and
(b) on conviction on indictment to a fine which, if the offender is not a body corporate, shall not exceed five hundred pounds."
There have been 10 Orders already made under Section 29. This is the 11th Order. Therefore, I think it is relevant to see whether, in the previous 10 Orders which the House has let through, there is any form of precedent for the vague Schedule to this Order. I have studied those other 10 Orders. I think there is not one which could possibly form a precedent for the present Order. If I may, I will refer briefly to them because they show in what way this Schedule ought to have been drafted.
We first had the Order relating to Thorn Electrical Industries, and that referred to
periodic increases in the salaries of members of either of the contracting unions in the employment of Thorn Electrical Industries Limited".
So there the employees were clearly defined.
There followed the Order relating to the Newspaper Proprietors' Association, in which the arrangements to which it referred were carefully defined in a fairly long Schedule, so that there could be no question that that Schedule indicated exactly who would be affected. It was followed by an Order relating to printers, and, again, the agreements were clearly defined by reference to the parties and the dates of the agreements to which the Schedule applied.
There then followed the Order relating to a particular firm and its employees, J. E. Hanger and Co., Ltd., and there could be no doubt whatever that from the description in that Schedule one could discover exactly the individuals who would be affected by that Order. There was one relating to Joseph Bourne and Son, Ltd. at the

Denby Pottery, Derby, which, again, was specific in its reference to the employees. There was an order relating to road transport drivers employed by the Crown Bedding Company Birmingham, Ltd. There could be no doubt as to whom that Order applied. The Order relating to the employees of the Press Association went into considerable detail to set out the employees and grades to which the Order applied.
The grades were carefully listed in the case of the Birmingham Corporation, which was restricted in the remuneration which it gave to its employees in its transport department, and again there could be no doubt from that Order. There was the Order relating to the car delivery employees, and in that was set out a fairly long list of about 20 firms affected by the Order, and the employees to whom it referred were to be
employees of any of the following employers".
The Order which has not yet been discussed by the House, the Order relating to the Royal Burgh of Rothesay, again refers quite specifically to the staff who will be affected by that Order.
The Order which we have before us is, in my submission, wholly inadequate in its description, and the House would be well justified in throwing out the Order purely for that reason. When penalties are imposed by statute the crimes should be meticulously defined, and the more so if that crime is created by Ministerial order. The House and the country should be left in no doubt whatever of the action which will constitute the offence. This Order is a disgraceful form of delegated legislation. It shows an absence of care on the part of the Minister, and a discourteous casualness in the exercise of the power which Parliament has given him to bring about delegated legislation, a power which ought to be exercised with the greatest care when it is creating a crime.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Ron Ledger: I think that this debate has followed a pattern very similar to that of the debates on the other Orders, and it has become quite clear that the Opposition are really not concerned about specific anomalies which arise but use them in order to oppose the whole of the Government's policy on


prices and incomes. This has become increasingly clear. There is a world of difference between the opposition of hon. and right hon. Members opposite and the opposition of my hon. Friends who can show that throughout their political life they have always been fighting for better wages and better conditions for various unions.
The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) was very upset when we doubted his sincerity. Well, I will stop doubting it the minute he can show me his record in supporting the electricians over the years in their struggle for better pay and better conditions. He was very quick to refer to my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) because, having made his speech and then having sat through two and a half speeches, my hon. Friend went out for some reason.
The hon. Gentleman referred to this as though it was discourteous. I know that, in general, it is, but, having said how wonderful it was that the Opposition had chosen this subject for this debate, and how his Front Bench should be congratulated, the hon. Member then had to draw his hon. Friend's attention to the fact that the debate was still going on he then made his speech and immediately left the Chamber, and though he has been back on a couple of occasions he is absent again now. That is the test of sincerity; that is the test I apply.
During the years that I have been a Member of the House I have never heard hon. Members opposite make any sort of speech in support of the unions in their fight for increased pay—

Sir Fitzroy Maclean: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ledger: No. The hon. Member has not been in the Chamber. I certainly shall not give way. I want to get to the end of this debate. I have been sitting here while the hon. Gentleman has not. I do not see why I should give way.

Sir F. Maclean: On a point of order. I have been here the whole time and have not left the Chamber since the debate started.

Mr. Ledger: Well, I have been watching very closely—

Mr. F. A. Burden: Apparently not.

Mr. Ledger: The hon. Member has only just walked in. How would he know whether the other hon. Member was here or not?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that we had better get back to the Order.

Mr. Ledger: I was coming to it, Sir, having cleared this issue of the difference between the attitude of my hon. Friends and that of the Opposition to the Order. I wanted to make that quite clear.
It seems to me that most of the argument has been based on the question of anomaly. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. John Robertson) went so far as to say he expressed his opposition to the policy on the grounds that it would create anomalies. If he, like myself and many other of my hon. Friends here, has had any association at all with the unions in their fight for better pay and better conditions he must know that the law of the jungle system in wage increases, which has existed for years, does in itself create anomalies and has been the cause of the anomalies which were existing in this matter of pay. It is for this reason that I support the incomes policy.

Mr. John Robertson: I will not argue with my hon. Friend on his proposition about the law of the jungle if he will explain to me how it is that this Order and the decision of the Government assist in any way to bring about fairness.

Mr. Ledger: I would not try to argue that, because although I oppose the old system of wage negotiations, which always allows the strongest and more influential unions to win the day and the poorer unions to pay for it, I am not very keen on Orders of this kind. I do not long to see them come before the House. I am as sad as other hon. Members to see this Order; we all are.
We are all sad about the workers who, deep down, are entitled, we feel, to increases in pay, but who, because of Government policy, are told, "No, you cannot have your increase at this stage." But when there is to be a basic change in policy; when we are trying to change the whole unfair system of the economy, and rates of pay and remuneration,


further anomalies are bound to be created. This is part of die price we have to pay.
If hon. Members opposite had really wanted to discuss wages today I would have thought that they could have chosen a much better subject than this Order, although one that is not entirely unrelated to it. They could have discussed the position of some of the Scottish people who work with the electricians in shops or stores. Some shop workers today earn wages which are only two-thirds of the wages of electricians. If hon. Members opposite were really concerned about the anomalies created by the present system of wage negotiations, that is the subject that they should have chosen for discussion.
I have heard my hon. Friend wind up debates on these Orders on a number of occasions. A very good case has been made out against this Order. However, I cannot see how that case can be conceded without creating anomalies in respect of cases which have not been conceded. If this is conceded it will create anomalies in itself. In nearly all the wage negotiations that I have been called upon to carry out the question of anomaly has arisen. It was said that an anomaly needed to be put right, but immediately the case was conceded another anomaly was created, if not within the union concerned then within another union—and another claim was put forward. Before we knew where we were we were back again where we had started from and nobody was any better off.
Government policy is attempting to change this situation and to give the poorer-paid workers a better deal. If the case against this Order were conceded the poorer workers—Scottish shop workers, earning very low wages—would ultimately have to pay the bill. Although we would have preferred a situation in which there was no need for this sort of Order, many of us support it because we believe that in the long run it will do justice to a greater number of workers.

6.24 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Roy Hattersley): In an afternoon which has been characterised by some extraordinary speeches, the most extraordinary point made was that by the hon. Member for

Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean), who said that if the Government refused to take back this Order—

Sir F. Maclean: On a point of order. Surely the hon. Gentleman shows ignorance of what has been going on. I have not spoken.

Mr. Hattersley: The most extraordinary point of all was that made by the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), who said that if the Government refused to take back this Order they would be doing so for fear of taking an unpopular course, and if they persisted in going ahead with it they would be insisting on taking the easy way out.
I would have thought that one point we all had in common—certainly a point in common between the Government Front Bench and hon. Members on this side of the House below the Gangway who have expressed criticism of the Order—was that it could not possibly be suggested that the Government's incomes policy was characterised by the desire to court popularity.
I am sure that the hon. Member will understand that for my part—and I am sure that this also applies to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—there have been occasions during the last eight months when I would have liked to take the easy way out, or the popular course. Nevertheless, we have taken the view that our obligation, not only to the Government but to the country, was to apply the incomes policy, popular or unpopular. That is what we are continuing to do this evening.

Mr. Younger: I said that if the hon. Member withdrew this Order he would be taking the embarrassing course, not the unpopular course.

Mr. Hattersley: I think that the hon. Member went on to say—I do not want to argue this in detail—that we would be taking the easy way out. I hope that when he reads the newspapers tomorrow he will be able to decide whether the Government have taken the easy way, the difficult way, the dishonourable way, or the honourable way.
The second aspect of the hon. Member's speech to which I want to refer was


his criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon). The hon. Member took my hon. Friend to task for a number of reasons. As I understood him, his chief complaint was that my hon. Friend was relying on fact and detail. He suggested that my hon. Friend had committed the unpardonable sin of reading Report No. 24 of the National Board for Prices and Incomes and of having something precise to say about its recommendations on wages and conditions in the electrical contracting industry.
I warn the hon. Member that if he believes that an incomes policy is not to be determined by detailed and precise analyses of the situation he will be disappointed with the Government's case. The Government do not believe that compassion is necessarily the enemy of accuracy, or that one cannot be consistent and humanitarian at the same time. The Government believe that these things can go together. They believe that accuracy, precision and consistency are elements without which an incomes policy cannot work.

Mr. Brewis: Are the criteria that the hon. Member has just mentioned more important than greater justice and fairness?

Mr. Hattersley: As my speech progresses I shall say a great deal about fairness and justice. But I reiterate that consistency, accuracy and precision must have a great deal to do with the Government's interpretation of their prices and incomes policy, and, in particular, with the interpretation of the main issue which the House is discussing this evening—the issue of "existing commitments".
Hon. Members know that the White Paper on the Standstill, published in July, 1966—Cmnd. 3073—talked in paragraphs 20 and 21 of existing commitments. The hon. Member knows that existing commitments were redefined in the White Paper on Severe Restraint, published in November, 1966, and also that the original definition of existing commitments was made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the afternoon of 20th July when he talked about "definite commitments ".
By "definite commitments" my right hon. Friend meant something very precise. He meant not at all what was

meant by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) who, with characteristic forthrightness, honesty and accuracy, described the agreement with the Scottish Electrical Contractors Association as a "tentative" agreement. Clearly, if the Government are to base their policy on existing commitments entered into, accepted and agreed before 20th July, they must be more than tentative agreements. They must be more than informal understandings; they must be more than tacit agreements; they must be firm, formal and notified decisions. If we want a yardstick by which to measure them, they must be agreements which cannot be altered after having been entered into. They must be agreements which are final and determined for ever.
Until 21st July the agreement covering the Scottish electricians was not a formal agreement of that sort. I am sure that, on reflection, the House will understand that if the Government are to draw a line taking in existing commitments, and are then to say that existing commitments are those which existed before 20th July, it will be quite wrong for the Government, arbitrarily and capriciously, then to say, "On this occasion we are prepared to bend, break, or change the line ".
Hon. Members opposite would be among the first to complain if, having set down a precise definition of what an existing commitment was—having said where the line was to be drawn and having determined the date by which existing commitments must be entered into—the Government took power to alter that definition and to change the law if they so chose. The Government took the view firmly and precisely that since they drew the line they must adhere to it rigidly and precisely. That is what they are doing on this occasion.
If we had chosen—as has been suggested on many occasions—to say voluntarily that 24 hours does not count, and to say that the existing commitments should be entered into before 20th July, but on this occasion 21st July will do, the Government would have had a special responsibility to those trade unions who have taken a voluntary course consistent with the rules of incomes policy for existing commitments.
I give two examples. I choose the first so that I cannot be accused of choosing an example to make my case from


small and insignificant unions which the Government can order with impunity to follow the policy. It is that of the Pirelli Tyre Co., which had an informal agreement with the Transport and General Workers' Union on 12th July. It was ratified on 28th July, six days after the date on which existing commitments came into the field outlined in the White Paper.
That firm decided that, since the Prime Minister had six days before laid down precise rules and definite standards by which existing commitments should be measured, it could not in all conscience argue that its commitment was entered into before that period. It therefore understood the necessity to postpone the wage increase until 1st July. If it is prepared to accept that analysis voluntarily, is it not the Government's obligation to make sure that those parties which do not accept it voluntarily do so compulsorily?
The other example is even more dramatic. The Fire Brigades Union was literally negotiating a wage increase on 21st July, but said:
Yesterday, in the House of Commons, the Prime Minister stipulated wage increases which could go on because they were existing commitments. Ours is clearly not such a commitment and we will postpone our increase in the knowledge that, even if we negotiated one today it would not be an existing commitment within the Government's meaning of the term. Therefore, we could not go ahead with it until 1st July.
In the face of this sort of union taking this sort of stand and accepting the Government's policy as it is and as it is seen to be, surely the Government have an obligation to make sure that those few unions which choose not a voluntary path but to flout the intentions of the incomes policy are forced to obey the rules and play the game as it is played voluntarily by an overwhelming number of unions and employers—

Mr. G. Campbell: In either of the cases which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, was there an anomaly between Scotland and England?

Mr. Hattersley: I excuse the hon. Gentleman for his extraordinary over-eagerness. I am dealing now with the major contention of him and of his hon. Friends that this was an existing commitment. When I have concluded that part of the argument, I will turn to the gross

anomaly argument, which has been advanced with equal force.
Therefore, we accept that the Government are simply drawing a precise line and sticking to it and saying, as they always say in terms of the incomes policy, that in a sense they are making a compulsory Order to ensure that the militant few have no advantages over the cooperative majority. That is why only 35,000 people are today covered by Orders. That is why a tiny minority of the working population have had wage increases postponed by this compulsory method. The majority of their workmates have chosen the voluntary sacrifice—for sacrifice it is.
The Government feel that it is their obligation, in terms of equity and justice—about which the hon. Gentleman spoke—to ensure that, while the 8 or 10 million are accepting voluntarily the incomes policy and the line drawn on 20th July, the over-militant few do not take advantage of the co-operation offered to the Government by an overwhelming number of working people.
I turn now to the suggestion that there was, somehow, an obligation on the Government to make sure that the rates in England and those in Scotland ran hand in hand. This is not the same as the gross anomaly argument, with which I shall conclude. There has been a suggestion that, irrespective of the idea of men working side by side on the same site and being paid not the same but different amounts, there is somehow an obligation to ensure that what was paid in England should automatically be paid by the Scottish electrical contractors.
I hope that the House will understand that there are two separate and distinct agreements which in principle need not go hand in hand and which, indeed, 18 months ago, had no similarity whatever. Hon. Member after hon. Member has talked this afternoon about custom and practice as if it were as certain as the Northern Star that, if the English electrical contractors got an extra 6d. an hour, it would follow in Scotland. Hardly more than a year before the negotiation of this agreement, the idea of basic rates in Scotland and England being the same was totally new to the industry. Only in June, 1965, did that first come about.
These are two separate agreements signed by two separate employers' associations and covering terms and conditions of service which are fundamentally different north and south of the Border—

Mr. John Robertson: I have been listening to my hon. Friend's argument about two separate agreements which are fundamentally different. Will he tell me what the differences are?

Mr. Hattersley: I was about to do just that.
The first difference, which I am sure my hon. Friend will regard as fundamental, is that all the negotiations in Scotland up to and including 1966 were for a wage structure based on the use of single electricians working on their own and doing their own job. But all the negotiations in England up to but not including 1966 were based on the concept of an electrician with an adult mate to help him. This is the great divide between the electrical contracting industry and Scotland and that in England.
A three-year agreement was negotiated in England; part said that the use of mates should be abandoned and part said that the payment should not only be made during the first year, but at the end of each of the second and third years. It is suggested that somehow the Scottish electrical contractors should take from that agreement one small part—the first year's additional payment—and automatically accept it, saying that they had an obligation to follow it. That is not something which the Government have an obligation to underwrite.
My hon. Friend the Member for York quoted those parts of the Prices and Incomes Board's Report which specifically criticised the idea that the English electrical contracting industry should negotiate a wage increase clearly and precisely tied to the conditions of service and nature of employment in their industry and that that increase should then be copied by other industries either in England or in Scotland, irrespective of whether the conditions were the same and irrespective of whether the attitudes were appropriate—

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Would it surprise the hon. Gentleman to know that at

Cockenzie, which is a big contracting job in Scotland, mates are being employed by English contracting firms at 8s. 2d., while time-served electricians are being employed by Scottish firms at 7s. 6d., which means that the mates are still there and that there is a differential even compared with them?

Mr. Hattersley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for underlining my point. Attitudes, mores and practices in the two industries are very different. To suggest that, when one industry is making a fundamental revision of customs and practices, part of that revision should be arbitrarily hived off and made seem appropriate to the other industry has no logic and no connection.
I and the Government make no comment as to the propriety of the Scottish and English industries negotiating together and coming to a single settlement. That is clearly a matter for the unions and the two employers' associations. But it is not necessarily an inequitable decision by the Government if they say, "In the light of prices and incomes policy, we have no automatic obligation to ensure that what happens in England happens in Scotland at the same time." They are two industries with different attitudes and techniques and it is clear that they will from time to time negotiate different wage structures.
We have already heard this afternoon that it is wrong to suggest that the anomaly of two men working for different site contractors on the same site, one covered by the Scottish agreement and one by the English, doing the same job for the same hours, but taking home different money, is somehow the product of the prices and incomes policy. Before 20th July, separate Scottish and English contractors were working on the same site with the men doing the same job and taking home different pay packets.
Had my right hon. Friend agreed that the Is. should be added to the Scottish hourly rate and had it been paid in March this year, there would still have been Scottish and English contractors working side by side for the same hours on the same job whose men were taking home different pay packets.
It is no good my hon. Friends saying that while the earnings might have been different the rates were the same.


The Ministry of Labour and my hon. Friends know well that the man on the shop floor or on the construction site calculates the justice and equity, not of the rates, but of what he takes home at the end of the week. The anomalies existing before this policy was operated would have gone on had this Order not been made.
As hon. Members opposite ask us to define the Government's views on anomalies I should like to make this absolutely clear. The Government believe that they have an obligation not to create anomalies by their prices and incomes policy. Quite clearly, they would allow an increase to go through if it was only the policy on prices and incomes that would create difficulty. I cannot agree that it is a reason for allowing an increase if one of the parties says, "We were anomalous before the policy was created, we shall be anomalous if it is withdrawn, please do not make us anomalous by allowing it to continue '. The Government are entitled not to accept that argument. The Government are entitled to say that and to make their attitude clear.
One of my hon. Friends said that it seemed that the unions did not know what was going on, that they had not been informed and that the Government had not done their job in explaining the policy. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and I have spent a considerable time since Christmas talking to individual unions on points about wage increases and explaining the necessity for and the propriety of our policy. The Electrical Trades Union was offered the same facilities and accepted them.
A few days before the Order was made my right hon. Friend and I met both sides of the industry and explained the case. Even after that, the First Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Duchy met the union again to go over the ground and make sure that it had no illusions about where we stood and that the union understood the position. The operation of the Order was postponed to make sure of these negotiations and that the explanation was passed on. Knowing the efficiency of that union, I accept that what we expressed was passed on to the men and that most of the men understood the requirements of the policy and why we carry

it out. That does not mean that they have not a great deal of regret that the policy operated against them in this way. It would be less than human for it to be otherwise. But the Government have done everything they can to explain the propriety of and the necessity for this Order.
One thing must be said about the dispute in the industry and the varied estimates of how many men were on strike up to today. Fortunately, the dispute is over. It is important to put on record the official point of view of the trade union about this matter and to establish that, although the trade union officially supports the policy in general, the officials of the union inevitably and naturally regret the Government's decision to impose the Order.
The strike was unofficial and it ended today because the executive made it absolutely clear that it could not give its support and approval, or in any way show sympathy for, what it described, and for what has been described in this House this afternoon, as a political strike. I cannot help but contrast that attitude with that of the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) who showed some surprise and, I thought, a slight amount of regret that there had not been more political strikes. The secretary of the union instructed his men to conform to the requirements of Government policy.

Mr. Peyton: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my assurance that there was not the slightest element of regret in what I said. I merely echoed the statement by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) of surprise that there had not been more political strikes. I assure him that I expressed no regret.

Mr. Hattersley: Of course, I accept that assurance, but I am sure that the hon. Member will understand that when he makes speeches which I shall charitably describe as a bravura performance he stands a chance of being misrepresented. His glee seemed to be associated with some suggestions he was making to trade unions.
Finally, I must reiterate why the Government have an incomes policy and why Orders have to be made.

Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Gentleman said "finally" and seemed to be


going on to his peroration. Is he disregarding my comments that the Order is invalid because of the vagueness of the Schedule?

Mr. Hattersley: No, I am not. I am being generous in giving way, but almost invariably when I have given way to an hon. Member it has been just when I was about to answer the point he raised.
The Government's incomes policy exists because we believe that during the last nine months it has been essential to provide the circumstances of wage stability. The policy exists in compulsory form because we know very well that while the majority of the population accept it on a voluntary basis there is a residue of people who will choose by efforts of militancy—

Mr. John Robertson: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hattersley: No, not for the moment.
We find that they are prepared to be more militant. Because of that we have been required, now on 13 occasions, to define in general very precisely those few categories where the voluntary policy had failed and the compulsory policy had become necessary. We have defined them in this way so that they will include all those people who seemed likely to break the incomes policy were they not included in an Order. We have defined them in such a way as to include no one who would not be breaking the incomes policy if he were not included in an Order. We have no wish or intention to include those parties who are complying voluntarily.
Looking at the Order, I find it rather difficult to understand the rather laboured point which the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) made. The Schedule to the Order is precise. It says three things. It refers to all employees who are employed by the Electrical Contractors' Association of Scotland—employed by them within the terms of the agreement—which that association signed with the E.T.U. That means that every firm which is a party to that agreement expressly or by implication is covered, every firm in that association is covered by the Order and must pay to its workpeople

covered by this agreement no more than they were receiving on 19th July, 1966.
In the discussions which my right hon. Friend and I have had with the union and the management, whatever else was in doubt, the question of to whom it applied caused no speculation whatever. The E.T.U. and the Electrical Contractors' Association of Scotland know who is covered.

Mr. Graham Page: Mr. Graham Page rose—

Mr. Hattersley: No. I must conclude. I have given way many times and it is almost seven o'clock.

Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Gentleman said that the Schedule applied to those employed by the Electrical Contractors' Association of Scotland, but it does not say so in the Schedule.

Mr. Hattersley: I do not think that I even said that. If so, I did not mean to say it. I said that all those firms which were members of the Electrical Contractors' Association of Scotland were covered. I went on to say that all those employees covered by the agreement and who had their wages determined by the agreement must receive from the date of the Order no more than they were receiving on 19th July, 1966. I believe that this is precise enough for the House; I know that it is for the parties, and I believe that it can go forward on that principle.
More important than that principle, it goes forward in the knowledge that, while the Government can quote, and this afternoon have quoted, examples of similar cases—with all the same mitigating factors, with all the same circumstances, with very comparable dates—where unions have agreed in what they believed, and in what I believe, to be the national interest, to making a voluntary postponement of their wage increases, the Government have an obligation to ensure that a few do not enjoy the fruits of militancy, do not jump to the front of the queue, do not enjoy all the benefits which the voluntary accepting unions have denied themselves.
This is why we have made the Order. This is why we are debating it now. This is why, in terms of equity, justice and fairness, the Government are entitled to ask their supporters to vote against its rescission in the Lobby this evening.

6.50 p.m

Mr. John Brewis: The Parliamentary Secretary has accused others of making muddled speeches, but his speech was more muddled than that of anybody else who has spoken today. One would think that the Government's policy Was equality and social justice, but the tenor of the hon. Gentleman's speech seems to be that, because the pay of some workers is anomalous, the pay of some shall be more anomalous than the pay of others.
An hon. Gentleman on the Government side seemed to suggest that wages should never be increased, because increases created anomalies between one set of workers and another. This is a very strange concept.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I do not remember ever having used such a strange argument. Perhaps it is the hon. Gentleman who is muddled. The purpose of my argument was to rebut the claim made from the Opposition benches that, because they had been moving towards parity btween the English and Scottish electricians, the Order had somehow disrupted that and created an anomaly which had not previously existed. I was simply using the argument to show that anomalies had existed.

Mr. Brewis: I am very sorry if I have woken the hon. Gentleman up. I was, in fact, referring to the speech made by the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Ledger). However, I will carry on and talk about something which the hon. Gentleman said.
I come to the question of the payment to the English electricians who, I understand, previously had, perhaps not a restrictive practice, but a working rule that they should always employ a mate. They got their 1s. increase, which was a productivity increase because they would not need a mate. I cannot see that this is an argument for saying that the Scottish electricians, who have had a different system and who have not employed a mate, should have to accept a wage rate Is. less. Such an argument is completely and utterly anomalous.
What we should be talking about was put very well by the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs in Glasgow on 27th February, when he said this:

An incomes policy means the progressive injection of greater justice and greater fairness.
I do not think that the Parliamentary Secretary's talk about unions using their overwhelming strength to try to break the Government'se policy, as he said in his peroration, applies here. I much prefer the statement made by the First Secretary.
It is completely anomalous that the Government, who have a Secretary of State for Scotland, were not aware when they introduced the Prices and Incomes Bill that it is comparatively usual for Scottish wage awards to come somewhat later than the equivalent English ones. I blame the Secretary of State and the Scottish Office very much that, when the Prices and Incomes Bill was going forward, they did not stand up for Scotland and ensure that this was one of the anomalies which had to be taken into account under, I think it is, paragraph 30 of the White Paper; that there was always this particular anomaly which stuck out like a sore thumb. The Scottish Office did nothing to put it right.
There is no doubt but that this position will lead to a great deal of difficulty in labour relations in Scotland. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) said so eloquently, English and Scottish electricians are working on the same site but for different wages. The President of the Electrical Contractors' Association, Mr. Speed, has fairly criticised the Report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes on this matter as
wholly destructive and devoid of a single new constructive suggestion.
Mr. Speed has said that the pay freeze will do "untold damage" to future relations in the industry. This is true, and it is a serious allegation against the Government's policy, because in future everybody will make a tremendous rush to get their wage increases through before an imaginary deadline. This will lead to strikes if settlements are delayed. The treatment of these electricians will lead to great difficulties in Scotland in future.
I turn to the question of the anomaly, because there is specific provision in the Government's policy for the correction of anomalies. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland used these words in the debate in March:
The kind of case which "—


the White Paper is meant to cover—
is that for example of the colliery overmen and deputies, when there were large groups of men working side by side, one group with a salary increase and the other without."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd March, 1967; Vol. 742, c. 746.]
That was laid down by a spokesman for the Government as being a typical case of an anomaly which could be dealt with under the Government's policy.
This is a perfect case where such an anomaly is occurring. I am not arguing about the 24 hours. Here two bodies of electricians are working side by side on the same contract. I assume that in making that statement the Under-Secretary was speaking for the Government and that that was Government policy. If it is not Government policy, the Under-Secretary is here and he can interrupt me. In this case, the Government have no grounds whatever for refusing this rise to the Scottish electricians.

6.59 p.m.

Mr. Noble: I shall detain the House for only a few moments to say how depressed and disappointed I am by the Parliamentary Secretary's efforts to answer the debate. He maintained very firmly that the most important aspect of the Government's policy was one of consistency, accuracy and precision. His speech may have been consistent with other speeches he has made, but it was not a speech marked by either accuracy or precision.
The points the hon. Gentleman made were largely invalidated, because he attempted, as the Ministry of Labour always can, and always will if given the opportunity, to quote rare cases where there are slight differences in the pay, conditions and mores of different types of workers. He then said that no two cases are the same.
Whatever effect the hon. Gentleman may have had on the Electrical Trades Union itself, if he tries to go to any building site in Scotland and explain to

those on the site why somebody working in exactly the same way, on exactly the same job, even if he has a mate who happens to be paid more than the Scottish one, should be paid a higher basic rate than a Scotsman doing the same job, he will be laughed out of court. Indeed, he should be laughed at tonight in the House.

The hon. Gentleman's not consistent, precise and accurate statements, but pettifogging excuses in an effort to show that this was not an anomaly, convinced no one. If he wants to convince the House—though I doubt that he does—that the Government have a precise definition of what is a gross anomaly, the least he could do at the end of this debate, when the question had been asked over and over again, was to provide a definition of some sort. But he did not. He could not. His sole effort was to try to maintain that, in some way, what is plainly seen by many hon. Members on his own side, by all hon. Members on this side, and, I believe, by 99 per cent. of the workers of Scotland, as a gross anomaly is not to be treated as such because the Government have not got the guts to say, quite simply, "We realise that this is a most exceptional case. It is a gross anomaly, and we shall accept it like that".

They will not do it because they are afraid that the Pirelli Tyre Company, a totally different case, or the fire brigades, a totally different case, will then say that the Government have weakened on a point which they had made on another occasion, however wrong it was when they made it. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. and hon. Friends will join me in the Lobby in voting against this Order, and that the many hon. Members opposite who have spoken against it will, as they should, join us in the Lobby, too.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 238, Noes 281.

Division No. 333.]
AYES
[7.3 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Blaker, Peter


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Bell, Ronald
Body, Richard


Astor, John
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Bossom, Sir Clive


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John


Awdry, Daniel
Berry, Hn. Anthony
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward


Baker, W. H. K.
Biffen, John
Braine, Bernard


Balniel, Lord
Biggs-Davison, John
Brewis, John


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Brinton, Sir Tatton


Batsford, Brian
Black, Sir Cyril
Bromley-Davenport, Lt. Col. Sir Walter




Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Bryan, Paul
Hastings, Stephen
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Hawkins, Paul
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hay, John
Pardoe, John


Burden, F. A.
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Campbell, Gordon
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Peel, John


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Heseltine, Michael
Percival, Ian


Cary, Sir Robert
Hiley, Joseph
Peyton, John


Channon, H. P. G.
Hill, J. E. B.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Clark, Henry
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Pink, R. Bonner


Clegg, Walter
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Pounder, Rafton


Cooke, Robert
Hooson, Emlyn
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Hordern, Peter
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Cordle, John
Hunt, John
Prior, J. M. L.


Corfield, F. V,
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pym, Francis


Costain, A. P.
Iremonger, T. L,
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Crawley, Aidan
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Crouch, David
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Crowder, F, P.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Ridsdale, Julian


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Currie, G. B. H.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Robson Brown, Sir William


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Dance, James
Kimball, Marcus
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Royle, Anthony


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kitson, Timothy
Russell, Sir Ronald


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Lambton, Viscount
Scott, Nicholas


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Sharpies, Richard


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Doughty, Charles
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Sinclair, Sir George


Drayson, G. B.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Smith, John


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Stainton, Keith


Eden, Sir John
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Stodart, Anthony


Errington, Sir Eric
Longden, Gilbert
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Eyre, Reginald
Loveys, W. H.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Farr, John
Lubbock, Eric
Tapsell, Peter


Fisher, Nigel
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
MacArthur, Ian
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcarl)


Forrest, George
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Fortescue, Tim
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Teeling, Sir William


Foster, Sir John
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Temple, John M.


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
McMaster, Stanley
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Gibson-Watt, David
Maginnis, John E.
Tllney, John


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Marten, Neil
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maude, Angus
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Glover, Sir Douglas
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Glyn, Sir Richard
Mawby, Ray
Vickers, Dame Joan


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Goodhart, Philip
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Goodhew, Victor
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Gower, Raymond
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Wall, Patrick


Grant, Anthony
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Walters, Dennis


Grant-Ferris, R.
Monro, Hector
Ward, Dame Irene


Gresham Cooke, R.
Montgomery, Fergus
Webster, David


Grieve, Percy
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Gurden, Harold
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Murton, Oscar
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Hall-Davis, A. C. F.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hamilton, Marquees of (Fermanagh)
Neave, Airey
Woodnutt, Mark


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wright, Esmond


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Nott, John
Wylie, N. R.


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Onslow, Cranley
Younger, Hn. George


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Orr, Capt. L. P. B.



Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. R. W. Elliott and Mr. More.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Barnes, Michael
Boston, Terence


Albu, Austen
Barnett, Joel
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur


Alldritt, Walter
Beaney, Alan
Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert


Allen, Scholefield
Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.
Boyden, James


Anderson, Donald
Bence, Cyril
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.


Archer, Peter
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Bradley, Tom


Ashley, Jack
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Bray, Dr. Jeremy


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Binns, John
Brooks, Edwin


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Bishop, E. S.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)







Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Henig, Stanley
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Buchan, Norman
Hilton, W. S.
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hooley, Frank
Pavitt, Laurence


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Pentland, Norman


Cant, R. B.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Howie, W.
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Chapman, Donald
Hoy, James
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Coe, Denis
Huckfield, L.
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Price, William (Rugby)


Concannon, J. D.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Probert, Arthur


Conlan, Bernard
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hunter, Adam
Rankin, John


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hynd, John
Rees, Merlyn


Crawshaw, Richard
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Reynolds, G. W.


Cronln, John
Janner, Sir Barnett
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Richard, Ivor


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Dalyell, Tarn
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stratford)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Roebuck, Roy


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, T. A. (Rhondda, W.)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Kelley, Richard
Rose, Paul


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kenyon, Clifford
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Lawson, George
Ryan, John


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Ledger, Ron
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Delargy, Hugh
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Sheldon, Robert


Dell, Edmund
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Dempsey, James
Lestor, Miss Joan
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Dewar, Donald
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Dobson, Ray
Lipton, Marcus
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Doig, Peter
Loughlin, Charles
Skeffington, Arthur


Driberg, Tom
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Slater, Joseph


Dunnett, Jack
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Small, William


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Snow, Julian


Eadie, Alex
MacColl, James
Spriggs, Leslie


Edelman, Maurice
MacDermot, Niall
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Macdonald, A, H.
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McGuire, Michael
Stonehouse, John


Ellis, John
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


English, Michael
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Swlngler, Stephen


Ennals, David
Mackie, John
Taverne, Dick


Ensor, David
Mackintosh, John P.
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Thornton, Ernest


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Tinn, James


Faulds, Andrew
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Tomney, Frank


Fernyhough, E.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Tuck, Raphael


Finch, Harold
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Urwin, T. W.


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Varley, Eric G.


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Manuel, Archie
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mapp, Charles
Walden, Brian (AM Saints)


Floud, Bernard
Marquand, David
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Wallace, George


Ford, Ben
Mason, Roy
Watkins, David (Consett)


Forrester, John
Maxwell, Robert
Weitzman, David


Fowler, Gerry
Mayhew, Christopher
Wellbeloved, James


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mellish, Robert
White, Mrs. Eirene


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
Millan, Bruce
Whitlock, William


Gardner, Tony
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wigg, Rt. Hn. George


Garrett, W. E.
Milne, Edward (Biyth)
Wilkins, W. A.


Ginsburg, David
Moorman, Eric
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Gourlay, Harry
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Moyle, Roland
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Murray, Albert
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Neal, Harold
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Winnick, David


Hamling, William
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Hannan, William
Ogden, Eric
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Harper, Joseph
O'Malley, Brian
Woof, Robert


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Oram, Albert E.
Wyatt, Woodrow


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Oswald, Thomas
Yates, Victor


Haseldine, Norman
Owen, Will (Morpeth)



Hattersley, Roy
Padley, Walter
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hazell, Bert
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Mr. McBride and Mr. Armstrong.


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Palmer, Arthur

7.14 p.m.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Temporary Restrictions on Pay Increases (20th July, 1966 Levels) (No. 7) Order, 1967 (S.I., 1967, No. 608), dated 17th April, 1967, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th April, be annulled.
We have opposed each and every Order made by the First Secretary of State under Part IV of the Prices and Incomes Act, and we shall go on doing so until Part IV expires, and then it is probable that we shall take similar action on the numerous Orders that may well be necessary under a strengthened Part II. I understand that this is embarrassing for the Government and that they have frequently tried to refuse us time to discuss these matters. In particular, they did not wish discussion on prices and incomes matters before Whitsun, but we felt unable to join them in that conspiracy of silence and we have, therefore, provided a Supply day for these two discussions.
I am very glad that the Secretary of State for Scotland will reply to the debate. My speech will not be wholly complimentary to him, but all the same I am grateful for his presence.
We are invited to bring the full weight of Parliamentary pressure to bear upon the provost magistrates and councillors of the Royal Burgh of Rothesay so that we shall order them to break their pledged word to 20 of their administrative, professional, technical and clerical staff. That is what the Order is about.
The facts were spelt out by a number of hon. Members in the debate on 2nd March and I do not think that they are in dispute, although their interpretation may be. I shall, in particular, direct the attention of the House in due course to 27th May, 1966, the date when we were told Ministers heard of these proposals for the first time. I think that the course of events is as follows: the review began in October, 1965; there were formal negotiations in March, 1966; there was an agreement in May; and it was notified to the Department of Economic Affairs by way of the Scottish Development Department on 27th May. The request was for a reply in time to settle by early July.
Meanwhile, a two-year agreement for England and Wales had been concluded on 13th July. The Prime Minister's statement was on 20th July and the White Paper came on 29th July. On 13th September agreement was reached on a revised award of 7 per cent. over two years, payment to be postponed until March, 1967. On 20th January this year, N.A.L.G.O. was informed by the Department of Economic Affairs that the Scottish award did not qualify. On 13th February, the Burgh Council of Rothesay decided to pay the increase. The Secretary of State announced on 5th April—and we welcomed this very much—that the award satisfied the criteria of the new White Paper. Nevertheless, on 17th April, the First Secretary made the Order which I am now moving to annul.
So much for the bare skeleton of events. I now turn to the special representations made, although I regard them as a farce, for they have never had the slightest influence on the D.E.A., and nor did they this time. The representations were made by the representatives of the Royal Burgh of Rothesay, who pointed to the particular difficulties of such a remote area and to the declining population. In 1956, the population of Rothesay was 9,400 and in 1966 it was 6,600. The population of the whole of Bute has declined in the same sort of way. Rothesay pointed particularly to the difficulty it had in obtaining and keeping staff in an area which, although very attractive, is in many ways extremely difficult of access.
We have to remember that Rothesay, in common with many parts of Scotland, suffers from not having manufacturing industry and was, therefore, particularly savagely affected by the Selective Employment Tax and will not stand to gain from the proposed new employment premiums. So the council rejected the polite invitation from the Secretary of State to come to Edinburgh and sent him an equally polite invitation, I understand, to come to Rothesay. I believe that, in the event, the meeting did not take place at all.
I emphasise that, until this Order was made, Rothesay Council had done nothing illegal. It has acted most honourably. The next pay day is on 15th May and we will see what happens then. I make it clear that I do not encourage the


council to break the law. The law may be an ass, as I think it is in this case, but it is the law and it is only right that, from the Opposition Front Bench, I should say this.
There is one particular point I would like the Secretary of State to deal with. On 5th April, in response to two of my hon. Friends he said, in the second part of his statement—the first part being about manual workers—that
As regards administrative, professional, technical and clerical grades, the N.J.I.C. has today been informed that the Government accept that the increase which it has proposed satisfy the new criteria in the White Paper …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th April, 1967; Vol. 744, c. 214.]
Let us be clear about this. This change of heart was brought about by Parliament, by pressure from the Tory Party, the Liberal Party and, to be fair, by a number of Socialist Members individually. The right hon. Gentleman said that he found this within the criteria of the new White Paper. He could have and should have found that it was within the criteria of the original White Paper because, if ever there was a gross anomaly, it is the two we are discussing as far as Scotland is affected.
When will this Order be withdrawn? On 1st July? If not, all others except the Rothesay employees can be paid from that date. Or will the Order be withdrawn on 11th August, when Part IV expires? That would penalise Rothesay for seven weeks. We are suspicious in this matter because, when we have raised similar points with the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, he has refused to give any such assurance in regard, for example, to the Birmingham Corporation case and other matters. Therefore, I ask for a categorical undertaking that, if the House supports the right hon. Gentleman in this Order, it will lapse or be withdrawn on 1st July and that he will not hound the officers of the Royal burgh for doing what they hold to be their duty.
I said that I would return to the question of the date of 27th May. There is a direct conflict in the debate on 2nd March between what was said by the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. John Robertson) and what was said both by the Under-Secretary of State and particularly by the

Secretary of State. I usually find that, when a dispute is as to fact—interpretation is a matter for political debate—the answer very often is that both sides are right; and I think that this may well be the explanation on this occasion. I do not think it important whether a representative of the Department was or was not present at the earlier meeting. The point is that the Secretary of State said that
… the first indication we got"—
we", I assume, is Ministers—
was on 27th May."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd March, 1966; Vol. 742, c. 780.]
I find this incredible. This claim had been pursued for seven months, no doubt mentioned in N.A.L.G.O. journals and other periodicals. Of course the Department knew about it. In that case, the question arises as to why the right hon. Gentleman did not. I have some knowledge of these matters. When I was Minister of Labour, a schedule was put on my desk every fortnight giving the exact position of every claim, and not just agreements. A claim was born very often at a Whitsun or Easter conference of the union concerned and came to me often months before it reached the negotiating table. These schedules were made available in particular to members of the Economic Committee of the Cabinet and my right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble), in common with all Secretaries of State for Scotland in the Conservative years, was automatically a member of that Committee.
Is the Secretary of State a member of the Cabinet Economic Committee? Perhaps he will tell us, because this is very interesting. Why did he not know of this particular claim? If he is not a member of the Committee, why did no one tell him about it? The more he insists that he was virginally innocent of knowledge until 27th May, the more he makes it clear that he does not know what is going on in his Department. There are only two sorts of Minister—those who run their Departments and those who are run by their Departments. At the end of the day, Scotland will have little doubt that the right hon. Gentleman is in the second class.
It may well be that my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire


(Sir F. Maclean) may wish to argue this point, because I have little doubt that there must have been knowledge within the Department, and the Secretary of State will have to explain to us how a matter of such common knowledge was yet unknown both to him and to his Ministers. Naturally, in these two debates, the Government do not intend any discrimination against Scotland or against N.A.L.G.O. or against Rothesay. It just happen that way. Exactly the same point happened twice in the case of trade unionists, when I had to point out to the Government that trade unionists were, in fact, being discriminated against.
It was not the intention of the Government that this should be. They did not set out with this in mind. But this was the natural and inevitable consequence of the incomes policy, and it is what is happening again in this case. In the same way as there was no intention to discriminate unfavourably against Scotland any more than there was intention to discriminate against the trade unionists in the other cases, it has simply happened and it is happening in this case because of the negligence of the right hon. Gentleman.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll drew the attention of the House—and it has been commented on three times—to the remarkable gloss put by the Under-Secretary of State in the debate of 2nd March about the definition of a gross anomaly. In proving, as he thought, his case in relation to N.A.L.G.O., he gave away—and this is one of the embarrassments of the Government—the whole case as far as the electrical contractors were concerned. He based his case upon large groups of men working side by side, one group with a salary increase and one without.
What happened, of course, because the contractors were exactly in that position, is that the Government knew well that if they gave way on the contractors' case they would have to give way on Rothesay. If they gave way on Rothesay they would have to give way on the whole N.A.L.G.O. case, and the First Secretary of State would not allow them to do so. So they had to try to "bluff it out". That is what they have been doing and what the right hon. Gentleman, when replying, will try to do.
Some of my hon. Friends contend that the Secretary of State is a cypher and is ignored in the Cabinet. There is a good deal of evidence for that, but I do not take this view. I will make the charge much more direct. I think that, as the prices and incomes policy slid from its voluntary to its compulsory form—and this is why we are debating these two Orders—the right hon. Gentleman must have seen that Scotland would suffer, as we now know it is suffering. He must have known that, in general, Scottish agreements follow the English ones and, therefore, that Scotland, in particular, would suffer from the imposition of an arbitrary deadline.
Quite apart from the preliminary rumblings to which, as a member of the Cabinet, he must have been privy—he must have known something was going wrong with the economic management of affairs—we had the advance notice on 13th July, the full statement from the Prime Minister on 20th July and the White Paper on 29th July. That gives the Secretary of State from 13th July to 29th July, or two weeks and two days, to plead a special case for Scotland—not to plead it, but demand that Scotland should have special treatment.
This could have been done very simply because among the criteria which we are discussing in connection with Rothesay, and which we discussed a few moments ago in relation to the electrical contractors, was the question of a gross anomaly. All that was necessary was to write a paragraph to effect that:
Whether there are parallel, or linked negotiations, and one agreement is completed and within the criteria of the White Paper before 20th July, then both agreements shall be permissible, if they are within the same criteria.
If he had secured something like that, redefined or redrafted, perhaps neither of these debates would have been necessary, and all the upset caused in Scotland, and the fierce resentment there, as a result of these two, and other decisions, would have been avoided.
There is no need to make a special reference to Scotland. If any case, under the special formula that I have indicated had taken place, in which Scottish negotiations had been completed first, then some justice would have been done, rightly so, to those people from England


and Wales. There is no particular harm in that.
When this matter was last debated in the House the Under-Secretary of State, talking of the N.A.L.G.O. scheme, of which we have a specific instance in the Royal Burgh of Rothesay, went out of his way to underline the impotence of the Secretary of State. He said:
There is nothing in either of these White Papers which says anything about excluding Scotland, or any other part of the United Kingdom, from the effects of the freeze.…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd March, 1967; Vol. 742, c. 739.]
Indeed there is nothing, but there ought to have been if the Secretary of State was doing his job as a member of the Cabinet. We will vote on this Order unless sanity returns and the Order is withdrawn. We are considering what seems, on the face of it, to be a very small number of people—20. I have always argued that it is not so much the number of people that is important, but that if we seek to do justice we should seek to do it for 10 people, 20, 100, 1,000, or 10,000.
It is, however, a case of 20 people in a burgh with very special and difficult problems, which I am sure were forcibly put to the Department of Economic Affairs. I am equally sure that the Department listened patiently to the representations, but that they had no effect. The two points that I ask the Secretary of State to deal with are these. First, how can he claim that a discussion which has led to this Prayer, which was common knowledge for many months, inside and outside of Scotland, only came, in any real sense, to his knowledge, and that of his Department—which I find quite incredible—on 27th May?
Secondly, will he give us a clear undertaking that this Order, if it is carried, with whatever majority, even one so derisory as that secured a little earlier, will be withdrawn on 1st July, not a day later? Will he tell us why he made no efforts, knowing that these sort of agreements would affect Scotland, not in a general way but in a particular way, in those weeks leading to 20th July and the White Paper of 29th July? Now he finds himself with a great deal of resentment on his hands as a result of the two decisions, one which we have finished debating and one which we are now beginning to debate.
I have made it clear that I do not consider that the royal Burgh has acted in any way legally, and that is something that the Secretary of State must accept. What it will do in the future I have no more knowledge than he has, but I have made it clear, I think rightly, that I do not encourage it to break the law. Unless there is a change of heart we must register in the Lobby our opinion that this is a shabby method of proceeding, and that the Department in general, and in particular the Secretary of State, if they had no knowledge, should have had knowledge long ago, of what was being done to Scotland, especially to Rothesay.

7.36 p.m.

Sir Fitzroy Maclean: My right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) has put the Secretary of State in a position where he has to plead guilty to a charge of either negligence and incompetence, or ineffectuality. Many of us have been wondering which it was for a long time, and we shall listen to him with great interest. Did he try to do something for Scotland in this and other cases, and was he ignored, overridden by his colleagues, or did he not even try?
What has happened once again is that the Government have got themselves, and worse still, everyone else, into a hopeless tangle in their attempts to interfere with a whole range of matters that it would have been far better for them to have kept their hands off. As has been pointed out, they have committed a gross injustice, a whole series of gross injustices, and now as in this case, even if they wanted to, they cannot get out of it without a serious loss of face.
The White Paper used the phrase "a gross anomaly." The Government's whole prices and incomes policy is riddled with gross anomalies. We could pick no better example of this than the instance which we are now discussing. The First Secretary, who is blatantly responsible for this deplorable state of affairs, said to the S.T.U.C. on 27th February:
The incomes policy means that progressive injection of greater justice and greater fairness.
What does this look like in fairness? It must have been obvious to almost everyone when this case arose that a gross injustice was being perpetrated. It was pointed out, both from this side


of the House and by hon. Members opposite that about 20,000 N.A.L.G.O. members in Scotland were being paid officially less for doing exactly the same work as roughly 200,000 colleagues in England. Finally, under pressure, the Government yielded to reason and recognised this. Now they are committing more injustices. In our debate on 2nd March the Under-Secretary of State gave his now famous definition of a gross anomaly—
…of men working side by side, one group with a salary increase, and the other without."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd March, 1967; Vol. 742, c. 746.]
This exactly describes the situation at present obtaining in the I.C.I. works at Ardeer in my constituency, where Scottish and English electrical workers are doing the same job, side by side, at different rates of pay. But can the Government recognise an anomaly when they see one? Not they, as they showed by their attitude earlier this evening.
I return to the N.A.L.G.O. dispute at Rothesay. It is obviously unlikely that Scottish and English local government employees will be found "working side by side "—not that it would make any difference even if they were, despite what the Under-Secretary of State has said, as we have seen from the case of the electricians. The fact remains that they are doing the same work, and that surely is what should matter in a case like this anywhere except in the Socialist Utopia of red tape with which the Government have managed to entangle themselves.
In the end, on 5th April, the Secretary of State gave way over the N.A.L.G.O. award. He did so under pressure, not only from these benches, but from the Royal Burgh of Rothesay, in my constituency, which went ahead and paid its employees the increase morally due to them, as it was morally bound to do and legally entitled to do. But the date set by the Government for the implementation of the award was 1st July.
One would have thought that, having recognised, however reluctantly, the inherent Tightness of Rothesay's case, the Government would have been big enough not to try to stop it from continuing to pay its employees a fair wage—because that is what it is—between now and 1st July. That is what they have done, and that is what the debate is about. What

is more, they have done so in the teeth of all the extremely cogent arguments deployed by Rothesay Town Council in its appeal against the Government's Order. The Government could not have been more misguided in their choice of a victim for their vindictiveness than when they picked on Rothesay. If ever there was a strong local authority case for paying an increase, it was the case advanced by the Royal Burgh.
We all know about the brain drain southwards and the problems of depopulation. We should know that nowhere are these problems more acute than in the Islands. Moreover, despite all the arguments advanced by various people, including myself, the application made by the County of Bute for admission to the Highlands and Islands, the crofter counties, was rejected out of hand by the Secretary of State. Therefore, through no fault of their own, the Isle of Bute, the Isle of Arran and the Cumbraes have the worst of both worlds, and that is something for which the Secretary of State must accept direct responsibility.
For many years, Bute has had all the same problems as the areas included in the official definition—

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, the hon. Gentleman is going a little wide.

Sir F. Maclean: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, the special conditions in Bute formed the main burden of the town council's appeal against the Order. These were points which it made, and thev are very relevant because they have a direct bearing on the difficulties which the town council encounters in attracting suitable employees.

Mr. William Hannan (Glasgow, Mary-hill): On a point of order. If the hon. Gentleman is to be allowed to pursue that matter, would it not be equally relevant to argue that there are many other local authorities similar to Rothesay which may be put in the same position? Will we be entitled to widen the debate?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has alerted the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) to the dangers of pursuing what is out of order.

Sir F. Maclean: Thank you for that warning, Mr. Speaker. I will do my best to avoid it, if not to evade it.
The trouble is that to get from Bute to the mainland and back is neither cheap nor all that easy. High freight charges and high fares put up the cost of living on the island. The problem is aggravated by depopulation. This makes it harder than ever for the council to recruit the employees it needs. That is why it makes no sense for the Government to go out of their way, not to make things easier for the council or, for that matter, for the people of Rothesay, but to make them even harder than they are.
On 2nd March, the Secretary of State spoke of what he called the "rantings of nationalism". I think that he was very well answered in a letter which I received recently from the Town Clerk of Rothesay in which he says:
That there is a certain amount of nationalistic feeling in the matter is indisputable, but it stems from the belief that certain Scottish employees are receiving an unfair deal ".
That is what has encouraged nationalist and even separatist trends in the Isle of Bute.
The Secretary of State said that he would protect Scotland from the effects of the squeeze. The Under-Secretary of State came to his rescue when my right hon. Friend quoted him as saying "freeze". But even if he is not trying to protect Scotland from the freeze, but is trying to protect it from the squeeze, many people in Scotland have doubts about that. Certainly Rothesay and the Isle of Bute have not benefited very greatly from his protection, whether it be the freeze or squeeze which he is protecting them against. First, there is the Selective Employment Tax, which has hit very hard the service industries on which the island depends. Now there is this deliberate blow at the administration of the Royal Burgh.
This brings me to my final point: what will happen next? If the Order is not negatived, as I very much hope it will be, does the Secretary of State propose to try to pick out the local government employees of Rothesay for special penalisation by prolonging the

Order, which I understand he can do, beyond 1st July? If this is his intention, for how long does he propose to prolong it? Secondly, if, as seems possible, the Council decides, in spite of everything, to continue to pay its employees the increase which we all agree, including the Secretary of State, is due to them morally, what does he propose to do? Does he propose to prosecute them?
Could there be a better illustration of the sort of tangle which the Government get themselves into with this sort of legislation and these sorts of Order? I hope that they will take the courageous and generous way out and drop this ridiculous and vindictive Order.

7.50 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: This is the most extraordinary day in my life in the House of Commons. This is a fascinating spectacle. An extraordinary transformation has taken place in the attitudes of hon. Members opposite towards the remuneration of working people, a fantastic transformation. Never in the 17 years during which I have been in the House, and even before that, have I heard hon. Members opposite pleading for the rights of workers to have increased wages, whether the country can bear them or not, and demanding that employers should be encouraged to pay. I hope that this amazing transformation will continue for the next 50 years and that the Conservative Party will always encourage workers in every branch of industry regularly to put in demands for higher wages and encourage employers to pay them.
Now we have a plea on behalf of Rothesay in the Isle of Bute, one of the baillies of which some years ago claimed that it ought to be independent, like the Isle of Man. If it had gained its independence, we would not have had this Order today because, if it had had the resources, it would have paid this increased remuneration.

Mr. James Dempsey: Give them their independence.

Mr. Bence: I am certain that my right hon. Friend was fully informed about all the negotiations and all the demands for increases in the remuneration of N.A.L.G.O. members both in England


and Scotland, but, unfortunately, he was faced with the problem that local authorities in Scotland have always insisted on separate negotiations with N.A.L.G.O. I do not recollect any previous Secretary of State pleading that the system of separate negotiations should be discontinued, especially in respect of the remuneration of local government officers.

Sir F. Maclean: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Rothesay strongly supported the view that there should be a combined negotiating committee?

Mr. Bence: I am delighted to hear it.

Mr. Dempsey: When? It has been openly stated that N.A.L.G.O. has made every effort to have national negotiations, but effort after effort has been rejected by the employers' side of the Scottish negotiating council.

Mr. Bence: It has always been my impression that Scottish local authorities have always insisted on separate negotiations. There has been general agreement for many years that Scottish negotiations should be separate from those in England and Wales. There is strong support in Scotland for independence in negotiations, for a different wage structure, just as we have a different rent structure, a different rate structure and a different legal system. N.A.L.G.O. has always tried to arrange for negotiations affecting England and Wales and Scotland to be held conjointly, but the Scottish local authorities have steadfastly refused.
Immediately there is a crisis, such as we have had as a result of the free-for-all permitted for electoral purposes by the party opposite when in office, when hon. Gentlemen raided the kitty to such an extent that their successors were faced with a deficiency of £800 million—

Mr. Brewis: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that generally the Scottish award resulting from N.A.L.G.O.'s negotiations comes later than the English? If so, surely the Secretary of State should have known what was coming and made an exception?

Mr. Bence: I have known my right right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for many years and I am sure that he will answer the arguments far better than I can. I have also known him long enough to be certain that he was alive to

all the negotiations and that he would have done everything he could to warn the parties concerned that it would be far better, if they did not have joint negotiations, to get in their claims as quickly as possible. However, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will answer for himself.

Mr. Brewis: Can the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that the right hon. Gentleman will answer it?

Mr. Bence: I know that my right hon. Friend will answer any legitimate question put to him, and give a very good answer at that. He always give me a good answer when I put a question to him. However, as long as organisations in Scotland or anywhere else, whatever they may be, always insist on having separate negotiations, they are always liable to be caught in a changed situation.
We have heard much today about workers working alongside each other and yet receiving different rates of pay. For a long time I worked in one of the biggest aircraft factories in Europe as a journeyman toolmaker. This was in 1938 when I worked alongside toolmakers who were doing a job on behalf of a firm from the Midlands and yet getting 4d. an hour less than I was, although they were in the same union. The extraordinary thing about it was that any attempt by the union to level up their rate to mine was refused by the employers. The only time when the employers agreed was when the then Government said that it was undesirable because of the existing situation.
In my industrial life I always found employers always ready to raise wages of certain groups of workers when the Government of the day, perhaps because of the crisis of war, were opposed to such an increase. The same was true about the movement of labour and the Emergency Orders during the war.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher) rose—

Mr. Bence: I thought so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was about to observe that we seem to be moving a long way from the Order before the House.

Mr. Bence: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I feel so strongly about the Conservative Party making a plea concerning this anomaly of differentiation in earnings by people doing the same sort


of work that I went too far. Those hon. Members opposite who have had any experience of industry will know that this situation has existed for 100 years. It is not a new situation created by the Order or by the prices and incomes policy. Even in the local government service there are tremendous differences of incomes. There are anomalies galore. I have been having a major argument with a Minister about an employee of one of the Scottish national institutions who is suffering from an absurd wage anomaly. I should be out of order to pursue it in this debate. Anomalies of this kind arise from the system which we have inherited, a system which has existed for a long time. I shall go on trying to persuade the Minister to change this anomaly. Anomalies are not a new phenomenon. They are as old as Adam. Hon. Gentlemen opposite tolerated them in local government for years and—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not carry his argument beyond the limited scope of the Order.

Mr. Bence: Reference is made to administrative, technical and clerical staff. The objection voiced by hon. Gentlemen opposite to the Order is that it affects the incomes of a group of people employed by the Burgh of Rothesay. I am sure that, even within that group, there are certain serious anomalies. If one compared the pay of those in that group in the Burgh of Rothesay with the pay received by other employees in other Scottish local authorities, one would find serious anomalies and injustices. That being so, is it not fair to ask what the Royal Burgh of Rothesay has done about it? In my experience, N.A.L.G.O. has made serious complaints about the unjust income relationships that exist within these groups, but we have heard nothing about such injustices in Rothesay.
When one considers the remuneration of lawyers and other administrative people, one must admit that, relatively speaking, the pay of some clerical staffs is frightful. I do not know whether town clerks would be considered administrative or professional people—I suppose they are both—but certainly they have an exaggerated level of remuneration compared with some clerical staffs. I understand that town clerks in England and

Wales are not so well remunerated as those in Scotland, but perhaps town clerks south of the border do not have the same professional qualifications, or perhaps they hold different positions relative to the management of different local authorities. Nevertheless, I have heard N.A.L.G.O. officers express grave discontent about the differential that exists between the pay of many grades in local government.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite are unjustly criticising my right hon. Friend. I am surprised that the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) should accuse my right hon. Friend of not being aware of possible anomalies. Those who have known my right hon. Friend for the last 20 years or more know that he is extremely keen to spot anomalies wherever they exist and do something about them. I have no doubt that he is aware of the anomalies that exist in local government in Scotland.
I am satisfied that during the short period while the Order will operate, up to July, my right hon. Friend will have this matter in mind. I hope that when the period comes to an end, local government employees in Scotland will get the remuneration which, if they had put in their claim and negotiated at the same time as their English counterparts, they would probably have got. However, they did not put in their claim but waited to see what would happen—and 20th July intervened.
I hope that when they finally get the increases which have been negotiated on the same scale in England and Wales, an effort will be made by N.A.L.G.O., Scottish local authorities and the party opposite to iron out some of the wide differentials that exist in the wage structure of local government in Scotland. It must be remembered that those who perform the administrative tasks and those who do the arduous and menial work in local government all perform an important service. I hone that. when the time comes for the differentials to be sorted out, hon. Gentlemen opposite will be just as keen to bring any anomalies that exist into the open and increase the remunerative levels of some groups of workers employed by Scottish local authorities.
I urge my hon. Friends to do what I shall do, which is to support the Secretary of State when we vote later. We


can take this step in the knowledge that we in the Scottish Labour movement have, in the Secretary of State and his staff, people who have these affairs well under control.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence), not only for the way in which he succeeded in ranging so wide in his remarks, but because he spoke in his usual entertaining manner.
The hon. Member chided the Opposition for supporting employers who want to give a wage increase. He thought that that was a rather odd view for us to be taking. In this case, the employers are the democratically elected members of local government. I assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that any anti-employer remarks that they may make—or which were made in the debate on the previous Order—are completely out of place.
The latter remarks of the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East were particularly strange, since he said that there had always been anomalies in local government employment generally. I suppose that it is the sort of argument that we must accept from hon. Gentlemen opposite. However, it is an odd argument because, taken to its logical conclusion, it means that one will never remedy these anomalies. Are they aware that the anomaly we are discussing has been produced by an arbitrary act of the Government and by the rigid application of their policy? This is an occasion, above all others, when hon. Members should get rid of an anomaly and remove what might be a precedent for other anomalies to be created in future.

Mr. Bence: I do not look on this as an anomaly. I did not suggest that it was one. I certainly said that there were anomalies, but that many of them arose because of the line or date that happened to be relevant. It is up to the individual, in many cases, to choose one or other side of the line. For example, when people get married they are able to choose a date which gives them a tax advantage. It is often a question of choice.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I compliment the hon. Gentleman on his ingenuity but, after all, this is the line which I wish to

develop. This is not a matter of anomalies about dates. If so, it is failing to meet the main arguments put forward from this side in the debate on 2nd March.
The real anomaly is the discrimination of treatment of workers between Scotland and England. I do not intend to go over the arguments which we heard on 2nd March and in the earlier debate today, but I believe strongly that, in the application of the Government's prices and incomes policy, we have seen anomalies created between England and Scotland. In paragraph 30 of the White Paper(Cmnd.3150), there is the opportunity for a let-out and for the anomaly to be put right. We heard from the Under-Secretary in the debate on 2nd March how an anomaly of this type could slip through, yet it has become clear from this afternoon's debate that the Government have no intention of correcting any anomaly in respect of electrical workers or local government workers.
The section about anomalies was just eyewash to get support from their hon. Friends when this policy was first announced last July. It has become clear to me, during the course of the debate, that the Government have shifted their ground about what constitutes an anomaly, and that they have no desire for there to be any let-out or to be fair between England and Scotland.
The hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. John Robertson) argued that to try to remedy these anomalies would be entirely in the spirit of the White Paper, and similar arguments have been put forward from hon. Members on both sides of the House. I hope that the Government will show themselves to be reasonable, because it would be a victory for common sense if they did. What we have heard so far from the Government Front Bench does not give me very much hope that the Government will be reasonable.
Given that it is possible that they can get out of the difficulty which they have created for themselves, I hope that we shall not hear the same arguments which we heard on 2nd March. Then, the Under-Secretary went over the entire ground in relation to local government officers, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) in opening the debate. In his speech, the hon. Gentleman did not disagree with many of the arguments put forward by my right hon.


Friend, and the reason was that he relied on legalistic arguments and arguments that played with dates which we did not dispute. In addition, he played with apportioning to local authorities responsibility for the difference between Scotland and England.
It may help the Government to salve their consciences to try to justify the effects of their prices and incomes policy, but no reasonable person in Scotland would think that their arguments held water. If we are to be entertained to a repetition of them tonight, the Government will merely underline the fact that a weak argument is not made stronger by repetition.
On 2nd March, the Under-Secretary tried to cover the nakedness of his argument by an entirely legalistic approach. I hope that we shall not be entertained to the same spectacle tonight, because a naked Secretary of State is not a particularly beautiful sight—

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): How can the hon. Gentleman know that?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: One has only to study his argument. There is not even a fig leaf in it.
What concerns me is that, given that there is a loophole in the White Paper on Prices and Incomes, the Scottish Ministers clearly lack the will to make use of regulations which are possible to set right the anomalies.
The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East said that he was quite certain that the Secretary of State was alive to what was going on in these negotiations between the middle and the end of July last year, but that is not shown up by the facts. The facts do not suggest that he knew what was going on, that he represented the interests of Scotland in the Cabinet, or that he tried to make certain that anomalies would be removed which might penalise workers in Scotland.
Why has the right hon. Gentleman not stood up for Scotland in this matter and taken advantage of the opportunities open to him under the White Paper? When he is fighting for Scotland in this House, he is not fighting against us, because we are here to support him. He has people on his own side to support him, too. when he fights for Scotland. In

addition, he has the support of people in Scotland when he stands up for Scotland. The only reason why he does not get support in Scotland is that he is not fighting for Scotland.
One place where the right hon. Gentleman seems to have no support and where he has not the benefit of his hon. Friends and my hon. Friends behind him is in the Cabinet. He is the one person put there to stand up for Scotland. The place where he should argue for Scotland is not in the House and not in Scotland, because he has any number of supporters in both places, but in the Cabinet. It is there, when the prices and incomes policy was introduced last July, that he was not protecting the interests of Scotland.
After all, this debate on the Rothesay Order is only one example. We are seeing in this Order how Scotland is the victim of the freeze. On 2nd March, the Under-Secretary said that this policy would mean rough justice. Certainly it does, and it seems much rougher for Scotland. The Secretary of State talked about equality of treatment and how he would try to achieve it. It appears that some people are to be more equal than others and that, in his eyes, it is the people of England rather than those of Scotland.
When one studies the phrases which he used last summer, just after the freeze policy came in—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to confine himself to the merits of this Order.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Certainly, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was about to finish my remarks.
I am trying to show that this Order is the result of the Government's freeze policy and the failure of the Secretary of State to fulfil the undertakings which he gave to Scotland last summer. I think that this is particularly relevant to the Order before us, because last summer I took some cuttings from the Scottish Press. On 12th September, the right hon. Gentleman was reported in the Scotsman as saying that
Scotland had been sheltered by the Government from the full pressure of the economic squeeze …
On the same date the Aberdeen Press and Journal said:
Scots escaping full effect of freeze—Ross.


That sounds very good, but that is not what has happened, because if the right hon. Gentleman had protected Scotland we would not have been debating this Order.tonight.
What I found much more significant was a headline in the Scotsman of 21st October,which said:
Close watch being kept—Mr. Ross.
That, too, sounds very nice, but it does not mean very much, because the trouble is that the Secretary of State does not protect Scotland; he only watches it. We do not want a spectator for Secretary of State in Scotland. We want someone who will fight for Scotland, not someone who merely stands on the sidelines and watches.
It is because the right hon. Gentleman is only a spectator and not a fighter that I oppose this Order.

8.21 p.m.

Sir John Gilmour: The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) represented that this and the previous Order were putting hon. Members on this side of the House in the position of encouraging large wage claims. This Order has nothing to do with encouraging wage claims. We are discussing a Prayer to annul an Order which is stopping the payment of a freely negotiated wage settlement, a settlement which is being paid in another part of the United Kingdom, and which, so far as it affects wages in Scotland, was altered at the behest of the Government. There is, therefore, no question of us on this side of the House doing what the hon. Gentleman claimed we were doing.
What the hon. Gentleman said underlined the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), that the whole fault lies with the Secretary of State for Scotland, because it is the fact that this is a negotiated wage which has been adjusted at the behest of the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman is a member which puts the blame fairly and squarely on him. We know that he is a right hon. Gentleman who always takes the responsibility, and carries it, and this is surely where it lies.
The hon. Gentleman went on to say that the fault lay with the local authorities because they had not negotiated the wage

claim at the same time as it had been done in England. But this again reinforces what was said by my right hon. Friend, because the Secretary of State knew that this was happening. He knew that this was bound to happen, and he was, therefore, given warning. He knew that it was coming, and yet as far as we can see—although we still have to wait for his reply—he did nothing, and everything said by his hon. Friend reinforces the argument put forward by my right hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) said that during the course of these debates the Government had shifted their ground. I think that this is true. When we discussed the pay of the electricians, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour said that people were not interested in the rate for the job. All that they are interested in was the take-home pay. This is a fine argument when one is dealing with people who are paid at hourly rates, and who can work overtime, get site payment, and so on, but people employed in local government cannot earn extra money to take home. They do not have the opportunity of earning overtime, and I therefore think it valid to say that the Government have shifted their ground. People employed in local government cannot earn extra money by other means. This is the point which the right hon. Gentleman has to answer.
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman would agree that this is a fair statement of the facts, but it seems to me that a review of the salaries of Scottish local government officers started in October, 1965, that formal negotiation started some time early in 1966, and that agreement was reached in May, and under the early warning system it had to be notified to the Government. Thus, far from it being the case that separate negotiations in respect of Scotland were falling far behind those for England, they had, in fact, reached a fairly final stage by 27th May, but because the proposal was made for a one-year agreement, with increases of about 3½| per cent., with rather more in certain cases, the Government asked that the settlement should be made for a longer period.
It was, therefore, known to the Secretary of State—and this, I think, rubs in


the point made by my right hon. Friend—that this agreement was in the pipeline. When he saw what would happen he had the opportunity to see that a temporary agreement was made to safeguard local government employees in Scotland because of the policy which the Government were bringing in. This is where the responsibility lies on the Secretary of State. He had knowledge of this, because it was known through the Department of Economic Affairs that an agreement had been reached which did not appear satisfactory to the Department, and it was, therefore, asking for an alteration to be made. The right hon. Gentleman therefore had knowledge which made it possible for him to take action to safeguard local government employees in Scotland, but he failed to do so.
It is for this reason that I hope my hon. Friends, and, indeed, many hon. Gentlemen opposite, will support the Prayer.

8.27 p.m.

Mr. James Dempsey: I am beginning to wonder whether we are debating the Order relating to the Rothesay Town Council or discussing the merits of the Secretary of State for Scotland. It seems that the debate has gone rather wide and that it is now in order for right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to make vicious attacks on my right hon. Friend. This was begun by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod). He described my right hon. Friend as a second-class passenger in the Cabinet. The right hon. Gentleman is the last person who should make references of that kind, because at one time he was Minister of Labour, and we know how unemployment rose in Scotland in those days. Unemployment gave rise to great concern then, and I wonder what the then Secretary of State did at Cabinet level to help the situation. Did he go in to fight for Scotland or was he merely a second-class passenger also?
Let us be fair when we are tackling this and see what is the duty of the Secretary of State for Scotland when we are dealing with an Order arising out of a policy which has been laid down by Parliament. We all know that the policy was devised because some people believe that having a proper incomes policy is one way in which there may be a more equit-

able distribution of the wealth of this country, and in that respect it is a worthwhile venture, but if the right hon. Gentleman expects the incomes policy to be successful in one year, or three years, or even five years, then he falls down in my estimation, because the one country which did introduce such a policy did not see it reach completion for 20 years. So let us be fair and frankly say that in operating such a policy there are bound to be difficulties, and we have experienced some.
I am very surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman refer to the electrical workers because I can recall that he and his right hon. Friends opposed the electrical workers getting an increase during the pay freeze of 1961. We can recall those days. The fact is that the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends have two hearts. One they wear when they are in government and the other they wear when they are in opposition, and they act accordingly.
As to this question of Rothesay Town Council and 20 persons receiving an increase while thousands of others have been refused, an extremely unfair situation is created. An inequitable situation would exist were this Order not to be approved, and I am very much surprised to hear all the arguments which have been given as to why there should be this state of affairs, all the reasons pouring forth from the benches opposite trying to explain the situation away and accuse the Secretary of State of being lethargic in his approach to Scottish affairs, apathetic about the interests of Scotland, inept in his handling of Scottish affairs.
This is not the time to instance the remarkable achievements of the Secretary of State—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and if I were to try to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker would stop me for going wide of this debate. But, for instance, look at industrial development itself. Would hon. Members care to quote the figures? It is the highest in the history of Scotland, and even during the recent difficult economic days we still had a higher development of manufacturing capacity and square footage of factory space than the Tories provided in their day—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member was quite right when he said


that to pursue this would be quite out of order.

Mr. Dempsey: I am very glad that you allowed me to make that one point, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I am sure that there is confidence in the Secretary of State for Scotland—in Glasgow and Aberdeen, for instance. There is no question about that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Dundee? "] We know that there it is a tie.
On the whole, it can be said that in considering this Order we seem to look for the solution everywhere but in the proper place. Although by a democratic vote we altered negotiations to national negotiations, we did not negotiate as a United Kingdom negotiating authority. We have been fairly successful in attempting to obtain that, but there was the usual Scottish effort to revert back to Scottish negotiation. It has been decisively rejected.
For instance, in N.A.L.G.O. there was an attempt for a long time to have national negotiations in spite of the fact that there were elements which insisted on Scottish characteristics—Scottish types of educational courses and Scottish types of administrative training. These are understandable, but they are not a particularly logical reason for accusing the Secretary of State of being responsible for the delay in carrying out N.A.L.G.O.'s negotiations.
This was raised in the House long before the debate to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and it was openly said that N.A.L.G.O. officials, on making application, had been advised to await the outcome of the English negotiations to give them some guidance as to what approach they should take in dealing with the problem. That was mentioned here in the House and ventilated during Question time. It would seem, therefore, that this was the attitude which resulted in delay and the consequence of agreement not being concluded until after 20th July. It is morally wrong to blame the Secretary of State for N.A.L.G.O.'s domestic policy and N.A.L.G.O.'s domestic failure. When looking at this problem I think we recognise—I personally do—the unfortunate situation in which N.A.L.G.O. finds itself, and most of us feel, indeed,

that it has been regrettably misled in that respect. There are far too many Scottish negotiating bodies dragging behind the coat-tails of English organisations, and that can be said of Scottish joint councils when negotiating Scottish conditions. At the end of the day is it fair to say that the Secretary of State has responsibility for this decision on domestic policy by an organisation of that nature? In essence, that is what the right hon. Gentleman has said, supported by his back benchers. I say that my right hon. Friend is not responsible for such matters.
I have sympathy with N.A.L.G.O. in its efforts to set up proper national negotiations. It has tried to do this year after year, but has been unable to persuade Scottish local authorities to agree. The hon. Member talked about Rothesay Town Council being in favour of it. I would like him to quote an extract of any minute of that council indicating its support for such national negotiations. My experience leads me to believe that many Scottish local authorities, conservative in attitude, mind and policy, will oppose such a development because it might mean higher salaries and better labour conditions for local government employees. This is the root cause of the trouble. This is the element which creates opposition to the development of national negotiations.

Sir F. Maclean: I assured the hon. Member earlier that the Rothesay Town Council is in favour of combined United Kingdom negotiations on behalf of N.A.L.G.O. In a letter to me, the town clerk, who acted as assessor, has explained exactly how the relevant motion was put.

Mr. Dempsey: The hon. Member has made that point. I should like him to pursue that activity by voting in favour of this change of situation at the Scottish level. It would be interesting if he could pursue that theory and ascertain to what extent this expression of opinion has been implemented by the Rothesay Town Council. From my association with Scottish local authority bodies I know that there is an antipathy towards national negotiations and a deep feeling against them.
There is always the feeling that if they create a United Kingdom negotiating


body some Scottish autonomy will be surrendered. There could not be a better example of this state of affairs than that of the bursars. They could benefit from a national negotiating machinery, but it would mean sacrificing some Scottish autonomy, so they will not agree. This indicates the rigidity of the attitude of local authorities in respect of a wide range of services, covering a multitude of Departments and sections serving Scottish people in general.
Understanding this very delicate and contentious preserve which Scottish local government representatives hold so dearly, it is wrong that my right hon. Friend should be accused of being responsible for not operating a salary or wage award, or for not sitting and continually gazing into the crystal ball so that he can anticipate the way in which Scottish organisations will move and negotiations will take place. He has much more to do than that.
It is unfair, especially, for the right hon. Gentleman who has had responsibility in a Government Department, and who knows what it means to be in charge of a Department, to make such an attack on my right hon. Friend. I regret that I cannot now list the contributions made by my right hon. Friend to the wellbeing of Scotland. It would be a pleasant task. I could break the record of my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) and speak for more than two and three-quarter hours. It is the people of Scotland who are enjoying the fruits of the Secretary of State's efforts. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am very surprised to hear such choruses from the Opposition, who have been very quiet all day, and raised hardly a cheer for the right hon. Member for Enfield, West. I have raised the only cheer by mentioning the Secretary of State, which shows his popularity. When the debate is over and a decision taken, irrespective of the wild, scurrilous, irresponsible and irrational attacks of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends on the Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend will be as popular as ever.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: One point in the speech of the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Air-

drie (Mr. Dempsey) would command our agreement. He reminded us that my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) knows what responsibility means. In that respect, he outshone the Secretary of State, who, throughout this unhappy affair, has neglected his prime responsibility to the people of Scotland, whom he represents at the highest level.
My right hon. Friend reminded us of the timetable which led to this miserable Order. He said that the N.A.L.G.O. salary review in Scotland began in October, 1965. Yet the other day, the right hon. Gentleman suggested that he did not know of the review until 27th May—

Mr. Ross: indicated dissent.

Mr. MacArthur: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. If that is not the case, I hope that he will deny it. Is he telling us that he knew of the situation before 27th May?
If so, why did he not act? Why did he not point out the gross anomalies which would follow holding back the pay award reviewed for so long, and properly and fully negotiated? If he denies either of these suggestions, he is at fault. My right hon. Friend was a shade too generous to the Secretary of State. If the Minister did not know of the situation before 27th May, who was advising him? What went wrong? If, as he now suggests, he did know what was happening before that date, all of us on this side and everyone in Scotland will want to know why he sat dumb and took no action.
The Order depresses me for a number of reasons. Clearly, this is the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs speaking through the mouth of the Secretary of State for Scotland. I reminded the right hon. Gentleman the other day of his splendid declaration in the heady days just after the 1964 election, when he was reported as saying:
I decide things in Scotland. The Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot tell me what to do.
I suggest that the First Secretary has certainly told the right hon. Gentleman what to do. Suspicious as I often am of the Secretary of State's ability and makeup, I cannot help feeling that, lurking somewhere in him, there must be a spark


of kindness and understanding for the people of Scotland which is trying to break through the shell of harshness which the Government have forced on him.
The Order applies to Scotland the harshest interpretation of a bad policy. The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are using as scapegoats a small union and a small burgh. This is the shameful aspect of the Order. The small union, N.A.L.G.O., has acted responsibly throughout. It did so only the other day by not calling the strike which many of us feared might have resulted from the Government's provocation. The small burgh, the Royal Burgh of Rothesay, has acted responsibly and gallantly by honouring its word to its employees.
This brings us to what perhaps is the nub of this problem, the way in which this situation reflects yet again on the way in which this Government, by their policies, are constantly urging on the nation action which erodes the good faith of a contract. Not long ago when the Government found that their decrees were challenged successfully by the courts, they made illegality legal. Now, because they disapprove of the way in which the Royal Burgh of Rothesay is honouring its pledge to its employees, they seek to bring into play the enormous powers of the Prices and Incomes Act.
The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey), who is not now with us—

Mr. Richard Buchanan: He will be back soon.

Mr. Mac Arthur: I hope so, because he used the word "equity" in support of his case. There is no equity in the provision that the Secretary of State is trying to force through the House tonight. This is a most inequitable business, forcing an action on an employer which is completely indefensible from every moral point of view.
It is not simply a question of debasing language. This action is an erosion of standards generally. In the whole world we are honoured for the way in which we keep our word. "My word is my bond" is a saying which has a wealth of importance behind it. Over and over again actions by this Government are forcing people with the full majesty of

the law to break contracts and understandings properly and honourably entered into.

Mr. Hannan: The hon. Member will know that the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), when opening the debate, made quite clear that he did not want to encourage this local authority to break the law. What is the point that the hon. Member is making now?

Mr. Mac Arthur: The point is that the right hon. Gentleman has taken to himself powers which will make illegal actions which the Royal Burgh has taken to honour its word. If the hon. Member cannot understand that, he cannot understand our argument at all.
This is not only a question of debasing the standard of behaviour between employer and employee. I shudder when I see the slippery way in which this Government use words. Some of my hon. Friends have already reminded the House of the way in which the Prime Minister and later the President of the Board of Trade and other Ministers told the House that the development areas would be sheltered. This was said last July. We now have before us an indication of the sort of shelter the Government try to provide for the people of Scotland. It is significant that the application of it is to one of the smallest unions and a small burgh. It is a disgraceful application of a harsh and unjust policy.
With the memory fresh in our minds of how the Prime Minister and the President of the Board of Trade tried to slip through unpopular actions by saying that the development areas would be sheltered, we came to the abuse of language in the White Paper. It is quite clearly stated in paragraph 30 of Command Paper 3150, in relation to the freeze:
There may be exceptional circumstances in which some immediate improvement in pay is imperative to correct a gross anomaly.
Was the N.A.L.G.O. situation not an exceptional circumstance? Of course, it was. Was not there here a case for some immediate improvement in pay to bring the Scots into line with their English colleagues doing precisely the same work? Of course, there was. Was not this a gross anomaly which needed correction? Of course, it was. But the


right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends keep on preaching to us that there was no anomaly here. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot see a gross anomaly here, he has no concept of what words mean.
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what would happen if the Royal Burgh of Rothesay were not to follow the result of the Government's forcing the Order through tonight? I do not suggest that the Royal Burgh will deliberately break the law although the right hon. Gentleman would have put it into an intolerable position. It is only right that the House should ask the Secretary of State what sanctions would be applied if the Royal Burgh were to take the view that it would go on honouring its word to its employees until 1st July, when in any case the new scale can come legally into operation.
I have been looking at Section 29 of the Prices and Incomes Act. It is an interesting thought that the wording of the Act may not apply, or may at least apply very questionably, to these employers. If I interpret subsection (5) correctly, the wording means:
If an employer contravenes this section "—
an employer contravening this Order would, I assume, be contravening Section 29—
he shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, and
(b) on conviction on indictment to a fine which, if the offender is not a body corporate, shall not exceed five hundred pounds."
Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House how the Royal Burgh would stand? What is the status of the Royal Burgh? It is clearly the employer. If it were to defy the Order, what would the position be? Would it be fined £500 or, since I presume that it is a body corporate, would the position be wide open? Does this mean that there is no power of sanction; or does it mean that the Government, through the Secretary of State, I presume, could take any action against the Royal Burgh that vindictive-ness might encourage them to take? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will explain that to the House tonight.
However, I still live in hope. A little while ago the Government majority

melted away to 43. If 22 hon. Members opposite have the courage to act as I know that they want to act and join us in the Lobby, we could prevent the Order from going through. I still hope that this will happen.
Whatever the result tonight, I hope that the Secretary of State will stand back from the morass that he has got himself and the people of Scotland into because of his blind obstinacy and his refusal or unwillingness properly to represent the people he is supposed to represent. My great regret in all this is that this sorry affair has shown that the Secretary of State's eyes and, indeed, those of the Government as a whole, are so blinded by layers of red tape that they can no longer distinguish between right and wrong.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I think that one of the things which possibly is not very relevant, but which has been particularly striking about this debate, has been the enormous emphasis which has been placed upon the part played by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland in this particular piece of business. I really had no idea that my right hon. Friend had become such a terrible bogeyman for the Scottish Conservative Party. I can only take it as a kind of very back-handed compliment which indicates just how formidable an opponent my right hon. Friend is in terms of Scottish politics.
It is also, perhaps, an indication of the desperate state—the very low ebb—to which the Conservative Party's fortunes have fallen in Scotland. We hear all their ill-directed abuse and rather desperate attempts to wrest any party advantage they can from flogging this cause celebre interminably in the House. It suggests that hon. and right hon. Members opposite are very much stuck when it comes to the political battle nowadays.
The Government have been accused of inconsistency in this matter. With that in mind, knowing that it was the kernel of the charge being made from the benches opposite, I listened with growing amazement to the enormous number of inconsistencies in the speeches of hon. Members opposite. We were told, for example, and very forcibly, too, that this was an example of deliberate discrimination against Scotland, that this was the


most important issue at stake—it was the final hideous crime and ultimate condemnation of the Government's prices and incomes policy.
I do not for the moment accept that this was a case of discrimination. I think that there have been other cases concerning N.A.L.G.O. which went the other way; the negotiations over the plumbers' case is one example. But, even if that were not so, I cannot forget that, only a few hours earlier in the Chamber, when we were discussing the electricians, we were told that that was the final sin, the most glaring inconsistency and evidence of the impossibility of the prices and incomes policy, the fact being that workers on the same site were receiving two different rates of pay, whether it was happening in Norfolk, Wales, or in Scotland.
It seems that the Opposition are trying to have their cake and eat it, too, putting emphasis on different aspects or different alleged faults in the system as it suits them hour by hour.
Next, the Government were accused of shifting their ground. We were told that they had shifted their ground again and again. Yet, a few minutes after that charge was made, the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) said that the Government had not given an inch, that they had been rigid and inflexible. On the one hand, the Government are charged with being weak, vacillating, unable to make up their mind and changing every moment, and, on the other, we are told that they are like political pillars of salt, not prepared to give an inch one way or the other.
We have been told that this dispute and the whole incomes policy question is a matter of legal niceties and technicalities, that any man of common sense and broad understanding, looking at the situation, would realise that this was a special case, that it was an example of an unworkable position which could readily be distinguished from all other cases on which the line has to be drawn, by the very nature of the prices and incomes policy.
I can only say that, as I go about and talk to people in all sorts of industries, people who have been caught on one side or the other of the deadline which determines whether the freeze comes into

effect, I have the impression that everyone suffers from, perhaps, a misapprehension, thinking that his case is special, that his circumstances are unique and that the gross anomaly rule should have been invoked to give him a special concession.
But it just does not work that way. It is unfortunate that the very nature of this policy makes for rigid adherence to a dividing line. The moment one retreats from that or abandons it, one opens the floodgates—an over-used metaphor, but appropriate in this case, I think—and immediately invites widespread discontent and disillusionment.
The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur), talked of the principle, "My word is my bond" in relation to Rothesay. He should remember that this is true of the Government, too. We are trying equitably to apply rules which we have laid down and which are easily comprehended. Once we retreat from that and make an exception of this kind, the hon. Gentleman will be the first to dicover anomaly after anomaly, quoting the precedent which this example would give. He now claims that this case is unique and could not be found again, but he would soon take what advantage he could from a concession and try to force through scores or a hundred other examples which, he would claim, called for special consideration.
We are talking tonight about two sides of one question. One side is the value of the N.A.L.G.O. case, and I am the first to accept that N.A.L.G.O., historically, has a complaint here. Obviously, we are all agreed that national negotiating machinery is the answer. I am interested by the revelation of the new attitude of Rothesay. It is a revelation to me to learn that Rothesay has been pressing, for any length of time at least, for the national negotiating pattern which we all recognise as the solution. I wonder when Rothesay was converted to this principle.
The other side of the matter is the position of Rothesay itself. Here is a small local authority which, to be fair, has blundered and stumbled into opposition to the Government, leaving itself in a hopelessly exposed position. I suspect that, in some way, it is a little appalled


by what it has done. But it is in that position.
If one is talking about equity, is it equitable and fair to allow Rothesay to "jump the gun" in this way, to stand out in this way, to cheat all other local authorities which have had the responsibility and maturity to co-operate with the Government and to accept their decision and the necessities and dictates of national policies?
We have heard a great deal tonight about the response of N.A.L.G.O. I think that it was the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire who paid tribute to it, and I wish to associate myself with his tribute. Certainly, N.A.L.G.O. has been commendably responsible in many ways throughout the dispute.
My own City Council of Aberdeen was very tempted to follow Rothesay's example, but was held back for two reasons. First, it realised that it would be exceeding its authority if it moved to clash with a national policy decision, and the only result would be chaos and anarchy in local government. Secondly, and more important, it was held back by the attitude of N.A.L.G.O. itself.
It has already been said that the strike was called off, and N.A.L.G.O. has recognised its partial victory of getting the promise of payment in July, and has persuaded its members that further militancy is not necessary. I understand that it was made perfectly clear to people in Aberdeen considering this course of action that it would not be welcomed and would not be endorsed and formally supported by the N.A.L.G.O. organisation.
Rothesay is out on a limb in this in every sense. If we are talking about the responsibilities of office, and knowing what is entailed in them, it must be accepted that a very dangerous and alarming precedent is being set if a major political party, for reasons purely of petty party advantage, transitory party advantage, supports what is, in fact, a wildcat move. It is a gratuitously irresponsible move against the considered judgment of the national government. If they really support that, and if we have the misfortune to have the party opposite back in office, it may live very much to regret its actions just now.
This is a matter of immense concern. Why should Rothesay be allowed to get

away with this, to stand alone while every other local authority in Scotland had the good sense and judgment to recognise its responsibilities? Why should we invite that kind of action merely because hon. Members opposite want to make a few fiery speeches which they may imagine will attract them a few peripheral votes in local elections in Scotland?

9.2 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): One of the best remarks made during this debate, a debate which I welcome and expected, was that by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) who said that we do not want any repetition. He was several hours late in making that suggestion, because I have listened to every word of this debate, even as I listened to every word of the debate on 2nd March, and I can assure him that there was an awful lot of repetition today of the main theme of that debate. Bearing in mind that we are dealing with an Order relating to the Royal Burgh of Rothesay, traversing the whole general policy and the whole debate we had at that time really was not appropriate from the point of view of what the Government propose to do, to which the party opposite objects.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Does the Minister not know that if water washes over a stone for long enough it eventually wears a mark? When we have a Secretary of State with a heart of stone there are very strong grounds for repetition from this side of the House and for hopes that at the end of the day he may see common sense.

Mr. Ross: The Opposition must try occasionally to be credible. I say to the hon. Member and the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) and all the other hon. Members who have made various remarks about me, flattery will get them nowhere. It is only my generosity of spirit that has kept me rooted to my seat in silence whilst listening to these remarks.
I welcome the right hon. Member for Enfield, West to a Scottish debate. He has not been in one for a long time. I think that one of his last efforts was when he tried in vain to become Member for the Western Isles. I will not go back on


that and on the things said in that delightful slanging match.
Another complaint I have about the debate is that there has been far too much talk about the "small" Burgh of Rothesay. Hon. Members opposite who have spoken in that way about it will get no thanks from Rothesay because Rothesay considers itself the queen of the Clyde and the greatest of watering places in that area. Let the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Mac-Arthur) appreciate the measure of pride that there is in Rothesay, in its status and history and in the part it has played in Scottish tourist history as well.
I have been asked about the importance of the date 27th May, 1966. We had a debate on 2nd March, 1967, and it has taken hon. Members opposite until now to discover that something happened on 27th May. What happened then was that, officially, the Scottish Office was informed that a settlement was pending and we only were informed because this was the first time since a prices and incomes obligation had been laid upon the Joint Industrial Council so to report.
We were informed in a letter, the relevant parts of which I quoted in the last debate. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to read it because it was appreciated then by the people concerned that the Scottish settlement that was impending—what was said in the letter to be in general a 3½ per cent. increase—was not the same as the English settlement, which was a 7 per cent. increase for two years and that deliberately the Scottish local authorities had insisted on having a different settlement.
The Scottish local authorities knew that the English settlement was 7 per cent. for two years. They knew that it was likely to be acceptable. But they insisted on having what they called a settlement of 3½ per cent. for one year. They suggested that we might like further information. We said that we would like to see the actual settlement. When we got it, we discovered that it was not a 3½ per cent. settlement at all but a settlement that even they agreed latterly was 5½ to 6 per cent. for one year, which was quite outwith the then criteria and had to be ruled out. They were told of this. It was rejected on 13th July.
Then there is the question of our knowing what was going on. The right hon.

Gentleman should know that this is a private settlement come to between two sides—employers and employees—and that the Government do not enter into it. That is exactly what happened on this occasion. He suggested that, somehow or other, we should have taken steps in the announcement of 20th July to make special arrangements ensuring that, whatever happened to English and Welsh workers, Scottish workers would be specially protected. He was once Minister of Labour. Did he ever do that? I remember all the speeches he made then. On one occasion he said, speaking of the nationalised industries:
… we do intend to make clear to them and to everyone else our continuing determination that we will not finance inflationary awards, however these awards are secured, whether through negotiations or through arbitration.
There was no question then of "Yes, but we will make special arrangements for Scottish workers." In the very same speech, he was drawing attention to the rising unemployment in Scotland. As he knows, at that time unemployment was as high as it is today, at a very different time of the year—a time when it ought to have been lower. The right hon. Gentleman should remember what he said:
I would like to state the position of the Government. The Government is the largest employer in this country. In wage claims where we are the direct employer we will apply and we will be seen to apply the most stringent tests."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th October, 1957; Vol. 575, cc. 235–6.]
The nurses knew that, the teachers knew that. The civil servants, the very people we are talking about tonight, knew that, and the right hon. Gentleman made no special plea for the Scots, even those in Rothesay. One of the settlements in which he was concerned in 1959—I assume that he was concerned because he knows everything—was in respect of A.P.T. & C. staffs in England and Wales, and it was not until three and a half months later that the settlement was made in respect of the Scottish local government employees.
The settlements have never been the same. There are, of course, injustices within the grades. Let us remember that N.A.L.G.O. is not the only trade union involved in this. The Transport and General Workers' Union is involved, as are the Municipal and General Workers, and the National Union of Public Employees. They are all members of the Scottish


Joint Industrial Council. They are concerned to remove these anomalies too.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he had laid bare the skeleton of events. He missed out one or two events, and tried to put the emphasis on the wrong ones. He missed out the fact that Rothesay proclaimed that it intended, despite everything said by the Government, to pay the increase. He missed out the fact that Rothesay decided to pay an increase of 7 per cent. May I correct the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean), who said that Rothesay had decided to pay the increase. The increase that Rothesay is paying is not the increase that was agreed, as far as I know. It is a straightforward 7 per cent. increase. It is not equivalent to "what it was morally bound to pay" and all the rest of it.
Let us appreciate what was really involved. Why were there no Scottish Front Bench Members speaking on this? if ever the flames of rebellion and insurrection were fanned, they were fanned over this Rothesay business, and over N.A.L.G.O. Until that moment most people in Scotland thought that N.A.L.G.O. was a place in Vietnam. They fanned the flames of rebellion and insurrection we had speeches from the hon. Gentleman which were quite unbecoming from someone who had been a responsible Minister, suggesting that others should do what Rothesay was doing.
If Rothesay had a good case, after all of the speeches and all the newspaper articles and television interviews, how many local authorities joined its standard of revolt raised on Canada Hill? Not a single one. The county council, of which it is the main member, did not support it. Did Ayr? It did not. It did not apply the increase.

Mr. Younger: Mr. Younger rose—

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman had plenty of time to make a speech and as I live in Ayr I know that Ayr did not pass any motion in support of insurrection.

Mr. Younger: Mr. Younger rose—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to hear the debate.

Mr. Ross: Did anybody from Argyll join this insurrection? Did anybody from Aberdeen? The Hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) intervened when one of his hon. Friends was saying that Aberdeen had joined Rothesay and that Rothesay was not alone. Aberdeen did not. Not a single local authority, large burgh or small burgh or county council joined Rothesay. Why not? Does the right hon. Member for Enfield, West know the kind of local authority with which he is dealing?

Mr. Younger: The right hon. Gentleman is an Ayrshire Member of Parliament, as I am, and he must know that he has no fewer than two letters from Ayrshire County Council giving the fullest support to the N.A.L.G.O. case.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman should have been listening. I was asking how many authorities had supported Rothesay.
I have a cutting from the Glasgow Herald of 15th October, 1963, when'the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) was Secretary of State. It is headed:
Home rule on the Costa Bute".
It says:
Rothesay Town Council last night decided to campaign for self-government for Bute and for fiscal powers similar to those enjoyed by the Isle of Man …
The mover of the motion ex-Baillie D. Dewar, is to consult with the town clerk … on framing representations, although no one is quite sure how or to whom these should be made …
The Isle of Man and the Isle of Bute had similar histories under the Vikings, he said, and were part of the original Lordship of the Isles. He recalled that at one time Rothesay had its own Customs house, levied dues on ships going up the Clyde and its Provost had the title of Admiral of the Clyde".
What did the right hon Gentleman do for poor little Rothesay then? He was in the Cabinet and must have known all about this

Mr. F. A. Burden: On a point of order. This is all very amusing, but what has it to do with the Order?

Mr. Speaker: I must not attempt to make the right hon. Gentleman's case for him. I will call him to order when he is out of order. I do not think that the Isle of Man comes into it.

Mr. Ross: We are dealing with Rothesay. The right hon. Member for Enfield, West forgets that while he may not have been in the inner circle, he was in the Cabinet. I suggest that in his efforts to get back into the inner circle, he should not allow himself to be used as a party hack as he has been tonight.
The effect of the restriction Order is that as from 18th April payment to any member of the Rothesay staff of a salary higher than that actually in payment on 20th July, 1966, is illegal. This is what Rothesay has brought upon itself. Not only is the continued payment of the 7 per cent. increase after 18th April illegal, but any normal increments or promotional increases which have been correctly paid since 20th July, 1966, cannot continue to be paid after 18th April. The right hon. Gentleman asked me about this point.
The action of Rothesay Town Council, which has compelled the Government to make the restriction Order1, has had embarrassing repercussions for its staff. I am sure that officially N.A.L.G.O. would very much rather that Rothesay had been a little less extrovertish in its municipal eccentricities. It is understood that about 15 of Rothesay's 20 staff members affected have become entitled over the period since 20th July to normal increments, and the town council, as their employers, will have to seek, under the Order which we have produced to smooth the way, the Secretary of State's consent to make those payments after 18th April. Rothesay is aware of this and has been informed that any such application for consent will be sympathetically considered.
The town council's action may have another embarrassing consequence for its staff. Before making the restriction Order, Rothesay had paid a 7 per cent. increase for one month—that is, from 16th March to 15th April—which the right hon. Gentleman missed out. Under the restriction order, no further payment of this increase may be made before 11th August. Accordingly, the staff in Rothesay, unless before that date consent is given or the restriction Order is revoked—I cannot give the House any information tonight on the date on which it will be revoked; this may well depend on Rothesay's own attitude—will be unable to receive the negotiated award for the

A.P.T. & C. staff which will be paid to staff employed by other Scottish local authorities on 1st July.
To protect them from this unfortunate consequence of their employer's action, it will no doubt be equitable to use the consent Regulations to ensure that the A.P.T. & C. staff in Rothesay shall be no better and no worse off than other such staff in Scotland. We have been criticised by hon. Gentlemen opposite for invoking the Act against a little authority. But what would be the state of affairs among other N.A.L.G.O. staff in Scotland and their local authorities, many of whom supported the claims which N.A.L.G.O. were making. What would be their feelings if Rothesay got away with it? Their feeling would be that their local authority should support them in exactly the same way. We are dealing with a very different kind of Prayer tonight.
I think that it was the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire who asked about enforcement of the Order. The question of whether any enforcement action is required will arise only if an illegal payment is made. Nothing illegal has been done by Rothesay yet, including the 7 per cent. increase to which I referred, because it did not come under this Order. But if any increase in salaries above the level pertaining on 20th July is made after 18th April—the date on which the Order became effective—the town council will contravene the Prices and Incomes Act. It will then be for the Lord Advocate, not for me, to consider what action should be taken to enforce the Act and the Order. In addition, the auditor for the town council's accounts would be obliged to make an interim report to the Secretary of State who would then have to consider whether, in his opinion, the payment was illegal and should be disallowed, and, if so, whether a surcharge should be made on the members of the local authority authorising the illegal payment.
The Secretary of State may refrain from making a disallowance or surcharge if he is satisfied that persons liable to such surcharge acted reasonably or in the belief that their action was authorised by law, or that the circumstances were such as to make it fair and equitable that a disallowance or surcharge should not be made. The right hon. Gentleman will


know this procedure. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) will remember this procedure: he was threatened with it when he was a member of Dundee Corporation.
Until any salary payment higher than that obtaining on 20th July is made, the question of a surcharge cannot arise, but if such a payment is made under the authority of the town council it will clearly be illegal and the members of the town council responsible will not be able to contend successfully that they believed that their action was authorised by law, especially after tonight's debate. Without prejudging the issue, I would find it difficult, to say the least, to refrain from imposing a surcharge, but these things are matters that lie in the future, and I hope that they will not arise.
It was suggested that we had submitted to pressure and had eventually decided that N.A.L.G.O. would have its pay increase met as from 1st July. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are completely wrong in suggesting this. The Government could not decide a date for this increase until such time as we had agreed the new White Paper and the criteria. This was decided when a policy for the period after 30th June had been settled. It was published on 22nd March and the way was then clear to consider the A.P.T. & C. salaries. I am sure that it came as no surprise to N.A.L.G.O. and the other members of the Scottish Joint Industrial Council, whom I had met during that time and who certainly appreciated the feelings of the Government in this matter.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite underestimate the difficulties involved—when, having embarked on a prices and incomes policy, one has a standstill agreement fixed according to a certain date—in making changes in the date. It is not so easy, I assure them. I have spoken to trade unionists about this. I remember speaking to a large audience of them in Dundee. If hon. Gentlemen opposite did not realise it, the trade unions certainly did. They realised that as soon as one makes a change in such a date for any one particular section, complaints come from all the other sections which have been held back.
In the circumstances, we have had a good debate, but I advise the House to reject the Motion.

9.27 p.m.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I will, with permission, address the House briefly before we seek to record our opinion in the Division Lobbies.
It is, of course, true—and we all recognise this—that although we are discussing Rothesay—and the Chair has been understanding in allowing some latitude—if the Government give way on Rothesay they will have to give way for the whole of the N.A.L.G.O. case in Scotland. That is quite clear, but my hon. Friends and I hold the view that the Government ought to do so; and, therefore, we are not impressed by the argument that Rothesay alone is concerned in this instance.
The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) said that he found it strange to hear Tories suggesting higher wages in these circumstances. I cannot think where he has been for the past year, because we have opposed every Order—not just some of them, but all of them.

Mr. Bence: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the last year. What about the years before that?

Mr. Macleod: We have opposed every previous Order. In discussing each one we have suggested that the employers should keep their word, but the Government have suggested that they should break it. On each occasion we have suggested that the employers should pay higher wages, but the Government have suggested that they should pay lower wages. That is the issue of the Royal Burgh of Rothesay which we are discussing tonight.
The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State did not avoid—indeed, he impaled himself on it—the dilemma which was pointed out to him by my hon. Friends in forceful speeches and by my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean), who is the constituency Member for Rothesay: that is, first, did he know? If he did not know, it is remarkable that he was innocent. Secondly, if he did know, why did he do nothing about it? This is the


point we wish to make clear before we vote.
In the debate on 2nd March, both the Parliamentary Secretary and the Secretary of State said quite clearly that the first indication we got was on 27th May. The Secretary of State for Scotland added a very interesting word today. He said:
The first we heard officially was on 27th May".
In other words, he knew for a very long time that this argument was pending, he knew that the dilemma was coming and that this situation—

It being half-past Nine o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Post Office (Data Processing Service) Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Crossman.]

Question again proposed.

Mr. Macleod: The right hon. Gentleman knew for a considerable time, although he does not deny the case which I made that he is no longer a member of the committee to which this information comes at once.
We asked him a number of questions. I do not wish to press him further about the one question which he did answer, because I realise that it is a matter largely for the Lord Advocate. He was asked what he would do at the next effective pay day, which, I think, is 15th May, if Rothesay persisted, which I have not advised it to do. This answer on that was fair, and I do not press him further on it.
However, we were extremely disappointed in the answer which he gave to the clear question which I put to him about when this Order will lapse. I asked if it will lapse on 1st July and be revoked

on that day. He said that he would give no undertaking and that it depended on what the Royal Burgh of Rothesay did. I do not like that sort of veiled threat from the Secretary of State. After all, he now invites the House to approve this Order, whereas we invite the House to reject it, he should say categorically when it will lapse. It would be a complete breach of faith if he did not revoke this Order on 1st July, and I am very dissatisfied that he did not make that clear tonight.

All the blether from the Secretary of State about what happened five or six years ago as a result of Tory policy has nothing to do with Rothesay, which I do not object to at all, but it has nothing to do with the enforcement of statutory legislation for prices and incomes. The party to which I have the honour to belong never dreamt at any time and would never dream of enforcing a statutory policy. These difficulties have arisen for Rothesay and for Scotland because there is a statutory policy.

A voluntary prices and incomes policy is one thing—and there is no need to make special provision for Scotland in this case—but when there are deadlines, and they are supported by making it an offence against the law, it becomes the duty of the Secretary of State for Scotland to protect Scotland from the inevitable consequences of it.

We know now that the right hon. Gentleman knew for a very long time that this would happen. What did he do between 13th and 29th July to protect Scotland and Rothesay? The answer is that he did nothing, and that is why we shall vote in favour of annulling the Order.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 237, Noes 285.

Division No. 334.]
AYES
[9.35 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Biggs-Davison, John
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Buck, Antony (Colchester)


Astor, John
Black, Sir Cyril
Bullus, Sir Erie


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Blaker, Peter
Burden, F. A.


Awdry, Daniel
Body, Richard
Campbell, Gordon


Baker, W. H. K.
Bossom, Sir Clive
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert


Balniel, Lord
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Cary, Sir Robert


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Channon, H. P. G.


Batsford, Brian
Braine, Bernard
Clark, Henry


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Brewis, John
Clegg, Walter


Bell, Ronald
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Cordle, John


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Corfield, F. V.


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Costain, A. P.


Biffen, John
Bryan, Paul
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)




Crawley, Aidan
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Hooson, Emlyn
Peel, John


Crouch, David
Hordern, Peter
Percival, Ian


Crowder, F. P.
Hunt, John
Peyton, John


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Currle, G. B. H.
Iremonger, T. L.
Pink, R. Bonner


Dalkeith, Earl of
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pounder, Rafton


Dance, James
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Prior, J. M. L.


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Pym, Fancis


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Doughty, Charles
Kimball, Marcus
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Drayson, G. B.
Kitson, Timothy
Ridsdale, Julian


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Eden, Sir John
Lambton, Viscount
Robson Brown, Sir William


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Errington, Sir Eric
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Eyre, Reginald
L'ewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Royle, Anthony


Farr, John
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Fisher, Nigel
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Forrest, George
Longden, Gilbert
Scott, Nicholas


Fortescue, Tim
Loveys, W. H.
Sharpies, Richard


Foster, Sir John
Lubbock, Eric
Shaw, Michael (S'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Sinclair, Sir George


Galbraith, Hon. T. G.
MacArthur, Ian
Smith, John


Gibson-Watt, David
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Stainton, Keith


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Stodart, Anthony


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
McMaster, Stanley
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Glover, Sir Douglas
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Glyn, Sir Richard
Maginnis, John E.
Tapsell, Peter


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Goodhart, Philip
Marten, Neil
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Goodhew, Victor
Maude, Angus
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Gower, Raymond
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Teeling, Sir William


Grant, Anthony
Mawby, Ray
Temple, John M.


Grant-Ferris, R.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Gresham Cooke, R.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Tilney, John


Grieve, Percy
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Miscampbell, Norman
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Gurden, Harold
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Monro, Hector
Wainwright, Richard (Coine Valley)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Montgomery, Fergus
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wall, Patrick


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Walters, Dennis


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Ward, Dame Irene


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Murton, Oscar
Webster, David


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Nabarro, Sir Gerad
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Neave, Airey
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Hastings, Stephen
Nott, John
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hawkins, Paul
Onslow, Cranley
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hay, John
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Woodnutt, Mark


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Wright, Esmond


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Wylie, N. R.


Heseltine, Michael
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Younger, Hn. George


Hiley, Joseph
Page, Graham (Crosby)



Hill, J. E. B.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Pardoe, John
Mr. R. W. Elliott and Mr. More.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)


Albu, Austen
Binns, John
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)


Alldritt, Walter
Bishop, E. S.
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)


Allen, Scholefield
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James


Anderson, Donald
Boston, Terence
Cant, R. B.


Archer, Peter
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Carmichael, Neil


Armstrong, Ernest
Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Ashley, Jack
Boyden, James
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Chapman, Donald


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Bradley, Tom
Coe, Denis


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Coleman, Donald


Barnes, Michael
Brooks, Edwin
Concannon, J. D.


Barnett, Joel
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Conlan, Bernard


Beaney, Alan
Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)


Bence, Cyril
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-tyne, W.)
Crawshaw, Richard


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Buchan, Norman
Cronin, John







Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Pavitt, Laurence


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hunter, Adam
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Dalyell, Tam
Hynd, John
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Pentland, Norman


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St. P'cras, S.)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Price, William (Rugby)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Probert, Arthur


Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Jones, Rt. Hn. SirElwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Rankin, John


Delargy, Hugh
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Rees, Merlyn


Dell, Edmund
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Reynolds, G. W.


Dempsey, James
Kelley, Richard
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Dewar, Donald
Kenyon, Clifford
Richard, Ivor


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dobson, Ray
Lawson, George
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Doig, Peter
Leadbitter, Ted
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (S.P'c'as)


Driberg, Tom
Ledger, Ron
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Dunnett, Jack
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Roebuck, Roy


Eadie, Alex
Lector, Miss Joan
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Edelman, Maurice
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Rose, Paul


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lomas, Kenneth
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Ellis, John
Loughlin, Charles
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


English, Michael
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Sheldon, Robert


Ennals, David
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Ensor, David
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
McBridge, Neil
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton. N. E.)


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
MacColl, James
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Faulds, Andrew
MacDermot, Niall
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Fernyhough, E.
Macdonald, A. H.
Skeffington, Arthur


Finch, Harold
McGuire, Michael
Slater, Joseph


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Small, William


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mackenzie, Cregor (Rutherglen)
Snow, Julian


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mackie, John
Spriggs, Leslie


Floud, Bernard
Mackintosh, John P.
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipwicle)
McNamara, J. Kevin



Ford, Ben
MacPherson, Malcolm
Stewart, Rt, Hn. Michael


Forrester, John
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)



Fowler, Gerry
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Swingler, Stephen


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfied, E.)
Taverne, Dick


Galpern, Sir Myer
Manuel, Archie
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Gardner, Tony
Mapp, Charles
Thornton, Ernest


Garrett, W. E.
Marquand, David
Tinn, James


Ginsburg, David
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Tomney, Frank


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mason, Roy
Tuck, Raphael


Gourlay, Harry
Maxwell, Robert
Urwin, T. W.


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mayhew, Christopher
Varley, Eric G.


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mellish, Robert
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Millan, Bruce
Wallace, George


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Watkins, David (Consett)


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Weltzman, David


Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Molloy, William
Wellbeloved, James


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Moonman, Eric
Whitaker, Ben


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
White, Mrs. Ei;ene


Hamling, William
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Whitlock, William


Hannan, William
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wigg, Rt. Hn. George


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Wilkins, W. A.


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Moyle, Roland
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Haseldine, Norman
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Hazell, Bert
Murray, Albert
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Neal, Harold
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Henig, Stanley
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchln)


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Hilton, W. S.
Norwood, Christopher
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Hooley, Frank
Oakes, Gordon
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Ogden, Eric
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
O'Malley, Brian
Winnick, David


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Oram, Albert E.
Winterbottom, R. E.


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Oswald, Thomas
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Howie, W.
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Woof, Robert


Hoy, James
Padley, Walter
Wyatt, Woodrow


Huckfield, L.
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Yates, Victor


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Palmer, Arthur



Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Harper and Mr. Peter Walker.

POST OFFICE (DATA PROCESSING SERVICE) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [24th April], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question again proposed.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Kimball: It is most unfortunate that such an important Bill should have to be dealt with at such a late hour. On Mondays and Wednesdays we must regard this as being a late hour, under our new procedure. It is unfortunate that those who manage Government business should have put us in this extraordinary position. We have been discussing other important matters since 10 o'clock this morning. The Leader of the House has assured us that the advantage of morning sittings is that matters such as this Bill can be carefully considered in the cool, clear light of dawn, when we can give them very thorough consideration.
The right hon. Gentleman now says that morning sittings are going very well. The Government have so much time—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must come to the Bill to which the House is being asked to give a Second Reading.

Mr. Kimball: I am coming rapidly to it, Mr. Speaker. I was regretting the circumstances under which we find ourselves discussing it at such a late hour.
When we were cut short in our earlier discussion I was asking the Postmaster-General how the private enterprise post office service in Hull would fit in with the nationalised enterprise which we are now advancing. Will customers in Hull be able to obtain exactly the same service as customers in Gainsborough and other users of this data processing service?
Most of our constituents take a suspect view of the fact that the Post Office should spend such a large sum of money promoting this Bill when, for all normal people, the Post Office is providing a more inadequate and inefficient service—especially the telephone service—than for a long time. I find a marked lack of enthusiasm for a Bill which will use up more land lines and make our tele-

phone service even more inadequate. I know that the Minister will say that one of the difficulties when the Post Office introduces a new system is that manufacturers get behind with their contracts. That is always the Minister's argument at Question Time.
I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman about the equipment and new machinery associated with the Bill. As I understand, when the Post Office places a contract the terms of that contract are simply that 85 per cent. of the equipment is to be manufactured in factories in the United Kingdom. A contract may be placed with a big international company, and if such a company receives a contract only 15 per cent. of the material used can be brought in to complete the job. Does this figure represent 15 per cent. of the delivered price or of the cost price? If the manufacturer goes beyond this figure, will he then be expelled from the neat little Post Office "ring" in which all contracts are given? One has to be a member of the Joint Electronic Research Committee to land a Post Office contract.
Many of the new computers and the machinery which will be needed will have to be made in Europe and we hope that they will come here without having to pass a tariff barrier. I want to know whether this 15 per cent. of the contract being manufactured abroad is binding on the manufacturers, or is purely mythical.

9.51 p.m.

Mr. Peter Hordern: This is the third of a series of debates on a short Bill which was supposed to be un-controversial, but which has proved a good deal more controversial than the Government could have expected. The further we examine it, the more objections we see to it. There is a good deal of mischief in the Bill, some actual and apparent and some potential.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology, on 24th April, gave two reasons for the Bill: first, economies of scale; and, second, the need for inter-communication between sources and users of information and between data processing systems. It would be foolish to deny that there are advantages to be gained in economies of scale from the use of large computers, particularly for repetitive operations. I


do not want to enter an argument about comparison between large or small computers, because it is unrealistic to suppose that there are not real advantages on either side. Hon. Gentlemen on both sides would recognise that small computers made, for example, by Elliott Automation and used in data processing machines. have such advantages.
However, a grid system of computers is developing in this country in any case and it would be surprising if it were not. It is the technique of development in the United States and Europe. The Flowers Committee Report on the use of computers in universities recommended that the cheapest way of overcoming the shortage of computer power was the use of large machines. I have always been in favour of a national grid based on a multi-access system.
Three weeks ago I tested such a system in Phoenix, Arizona, and operated a new multi-access system with 30 terminal devices attached to it. It is impossible to operate such a system without being impressed by the fact that this is the way in which future development is likely to progress. The development of research in computer technology and the new methods of research in parallelism lead one to believe that access to large computers will be even more rapid in its progress than we have observed so far.
I cannot do anything but welcome a Government multi-access system covering Government requirements alone. Indeed, this is one of the principle methods of improving the speed and quality of the Government's own statistical services which, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology knows, is a very urgent requirement. No one knows that better than he, with his service on the Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on the Government's statistical services. If, therefore, the Post Office were to offer to other Departments of State an integrated computer system in which the computers themselves were compatible one with the other instead of as it now is, that would be one thing, but that is not at all the system which is now proposed in this Bill.
Under the Bill, the Post Office will be empowered to offer a computer service which would be in direct competition with computer service agencies. I have not

noticed that there is any particular shortage of those agencies. In any case I have an aversion to taxpayers' money being used in an enterprise which all the experience of nationalised services shows is bound to come off second best in competition with private enterprise. There is no evidence that the competition in which the Post Office will be engaged will be fair.
The computer service which the Post Office will run will necessarily depend on the telephone services which only the Post Office can offer, whether these services are offered to the Post Office or to outside agencies. We want to hear what kind of assurance the Government can give that the telephone services of the G.P.O. will be as readily available to outside agencies in every instance as they will be to the Post Office under the Bill. Is it suggested that there should be no difference in the quoted delivery? I cannot conceive that such a situation could occur, because in this case the Government's prestige is at stake. It is impossible to believe that the Post Office computer users would not be favoured by the Post Office telephone service.
Even if a formula could be devised to cover that point there still remains the question whether the £9 million envisaged to be spent under the Bill can be best spent in this direction. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price), on the earlier occasion during this Second Reading debate, referred to the appalling breakdown in telecommunication services from which the country is still suffering. I had occasion to ring up the Ministry of Technology two months ago and while I waited for an answer I counted the number of pips I heard before someone answered the telephone. I got to 100 which must be a record for any Ministry, but which, for the Ministry of Technology, was particularly fitting.
As my hon. Friend said, this money could better be spent in improving existing telecommunications services. I have a particular recollection of a large insurance company in my constituency which installed a large computer system wholly dependent on lines to be provided by the G.P.O. and those lines were not forthcoming in time and were very inefficient in service.
Would not this £9 million be better spent in training systems analysts? In


the United States I saw an estimate that by 1970 645,000 people would be trained in data processing. According to Lord Snow, in a speech in another place about a year ago, there were about 6,000 systems analysts and 15,000 would be required by 1970. On any comparison whatever, the number of people engaged in learning data processing in this country is far too small for the task ahead.
Further, will the Post Office be competing on level terms with outside agencies? It is transparently clear that it will not. It will either get money from the Treasury or be able to borrow on terms available only to the Government at a much cheaper rate than that available to outside agencies. This is confirmed by the White Paper on the Reorganisation of the Post Office, paragraph 26 of which says:
The Corporation will borrow long term exclusively from the Minister".
Obviously, no outside agencies will have that kind of advantage.
We are then told that Post Office computers are to be written off over 10 years. I do not know of any other agency that writes off its machines in that period of time. I do not believe that any other agency could afford to do so. It is clear that the Post Office, if it writes off its machines in that period of time, will be able to provide a very much cheaper service than is now the case. I have questioned a number of outside agencies about the length of time in which they write off their machines, and in no case is it as long as 10 years. These are in themselves sufficient grounds for opposing the Bill.
The second reason which the hon. Gentleman gave for the Bill was the need for intercommunication between the sources and users of information. It is improbable that most hon. Members have read the Fabian pamphlet written by the Parliamentary Secretary less than two years ago. I cannot recommend it as particularly good reading now, because I cannot believe that anyone could think that it was practicable policy. I think that the hon. Gentleman himself, during the course of discussions in his Select Committee Sub-Committee on the Government's statistical services, had his own pet theories exploded by the comments

of such people as Professor Cairncross and Sir Alexander Johnstone.
At any rate, the theory is that it is possible to evolve a model system of the economy upon which can be devised a national plan. I mention this because, curiously enough, under the Bill powers will be given to a Government undertaking to establish a computer system with links with every firm in the land. This is horrifying in its implications.
I want to quote one or two remarks which the hon. Gentleman made in his pamphlet. I apologise to him for not notifying him that I would do this, because I am sure that he would have liked to remark on them at the end of the debate. These remarks now appear to be so extraordinary. The hon. Gentleman said this in the pamphlet:
But there remains a conflict of interest between the firm and a wider interest"—
which, presumably, means the public interest, or what the hon. Gentleman defines as the public interest—
a range of instruments should be available to the planners—negative and even positive injunctions could be used in defined circumstances.
What charming powers these must be. And how undefined!
On another page of the pamphlet the hon. Gentleman says this:
Production functions would be available for each establishment.
I wonder what kind of production function would have been given to the Beatles, who have just earned £20 million worth of export business in the United States. It is beautiful symmetry which the hon. Gentleman puts forward in his pamphlet, the devising of a model, the construction of a national plan round it, and then, through the system devised, giving access to computers to every firm in the country, and the Government have the ability to tell those firms and those engaged in the business of those firms precisely what they should be doing, under severe penalties. I mention that as what I believe to be, not an example of what could happen, but as some of the thoughts which still run through the minds of hon. Members opposite.
The Government have learned a great many lessons since they came to power, much to this country's cost. But it is still possible for them to neglect the way


in which things are run and even to fail to observe the experience of other countries, and the failure of planning even in Communist countries and other countries which have developed their systems round the planning concept. They will still, I am sure, continue to object to the principal motive for efficiency in business, the profit motive, and I do not believe that we shall—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a wide debate, but not so wide as to traverse all the differences between the two major political parties.

Mr. Hordern: Then I shall shorten my remarks on those differences, Mr. Speaker, saying only that I do not believe that there can ever have been an Administration with so little practical experience of management in business and industry, or one which has interfered so much with business and industry. It is this kind of concept which hon. Members opposite are now putting forward, in a Bill seemingly as harmless as this, which leads us to one conclusion only, that we must oppose it at once.

10.6 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Dr. Jeremy Bray): The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Dr. Jeremy Bray) rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentlemen wishes to address the House again, he must have the leave of the House.

Dr. Bray: If I may have the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, I shall speak very briefly, not venturing into the wider realms on which you called the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) to order bin: dealing merely with the specific questions asked by the two hon. Gentlemen who have spoken.
I can trace no reference whatever to the 85 per cent. rule alleged to exist by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball). There is no ring in the provision of computer equipment, and neither is one likely to develop.
The hon. Member for Horsham raised the question of the pay-off from large

computer applications. The Post Office is securing a return of from 12 to 40 per cent. on its existing computer installations, through good management, and there is no reason to think it would fail to secure equally useful returns on the National Data Processing Service.

The hon. Member for Horsham advocated the development of a national grid. If he will look into the information flow problems involved, he will realise that the use for Government statistical services is tiny—and, of course, the pamphlet to which he referred has nothing whatever to do with a national computer grid or anything of that sort at all.

On the question of competition with bureau services, my own worry would be that, with the National Data Processing Service, the cost of establishing a private computer bureau will become so small that it would be no more than the cost of writing one or two programmes and engaging a couple of punch operators, so that we should be likely to have absolutely cut-throat competition between small very active private bureaux—some of which, no doubt, would do very well, while others might have standards of doubtful value to offer to customers—and in selling their services, they would perhaps, try to take advantage of the reputation of the Post Office.

Clearly, this is a commercial possibility which would have to be watched simply to safeguard the public. But I see no likelihood whatever of a monopoly situation developing in the use of computers or in the provision of computer services. Quite the contrary.

Hon. Members opposite have not failed to be struck by at least some aspects of the possibilities opened by the Bill. I assure them that the reaction of people in the computer world to whom we have spoken is one of great interest and anxiety to exploit the exciting technical and commercial possibilities which the Bill offers.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes, 203, Noes 123.

Division No. 335.]
AYES
[10.10 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Bidwell, Sydney


Albu, Austen
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Binns, John


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bagier, Cordon A. T.
Bishop, E. S.


Allen, Scholefield
Barnes, Michael
Blenkinsop, Arthur


Anderson, Donald
Beaney, Alan
Booth, Albert


Archer, Peter
Bence, Cyril
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.




Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Heffer, Eric S.
Oswald, Thomas


Brooks, Edwin
Henig, Stanley
Padley, Walter


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Hooley, Frank
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hooson, Emlyn
Palmer, Arthur


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pardoe, John


Buchan, Norman
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Park, Trevor


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Cant, R. B.
Howie, W.
Pavitt, Laurence


Carmichael, Neil
Hoy, James
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Huckfield, L.
Pentland, Norman


Coleman, Donald
Hunter, Adam
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Concannon, J. D.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St. P'cras, S.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Conlan, Bernard
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Crawshaw, Richard
Kelley, Richard
Price, William (Rugby)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Kenyon, Clifford
Probert, Arthur


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Dalyell, Tam
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Lawson, George
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Leadbitter, Ted
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lee, John (Reading)
Roebuck, Roy


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Rose, Paul


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lomas, Kenneth
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Loughlin, Charles
Ryan, John


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lubbock, Eric
Short Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-tyne)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)



Delargy, Hugh
MacColl, James
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Dell, Edmund

Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Dempsey, James
Macdonald, A. H.
Slater, Joseph


Dewar, Donald
McGuire, Michael
Small, william


Dobson, Ray
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Snow, Julian


Doig, Peter
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Spriggs, Leslie


Driberg, Tom
Mackintosh, John P.
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Dunnett, Jack
McNamara, J. Kevin
Swain, Thomas


Ellis, John
MacPherson, Malcolm
Taverne, Dick


English, Michael
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Ennals, David
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Tinn, James


Ensor, David
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Tuck, Raphael


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Manuel, Archie
Urwin, T. W.


Faulds, Andrew
Mapp, Charles
Varley, Eric G.


Finch, Harold
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Maxwell, Robert
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mellish, Robert
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mendelson, J. J.
Wallace, George


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Millan, Bruce
Watkins, David (Consett)


Ford, Ben
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wellbeloved, James


Forrester, John
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Whitaker, Ben


Fowler, Gerry
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Whitlock, William


Calpern, Sir Myer
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wigg, Rt. Hn. George


Gardner, Tony
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Garrett, W. E.
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Ginsburg, David
Moyle, Roland
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Gourlay, Harry
Murray, Albert
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Neal, Harold
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Newens, Stan
Winnick, David


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Norwood, Christopher
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Hannan, William
Oakes, Gordon
Woof, Robert


Harper, Joseph
Ogden, Eric
Yates, Victor


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
O'Malley, Brian



Haseldine, Norman
Orme, Stanley
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Armstrong and Mr. McBride.




NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Glover, Sir Douglas


Astor, John
Burden, F. A.
Goodhart, Philip


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n' &amp; M'd'n)
Clegg, Walter
Goodhew, Victor


Baker, W. H. K.
Cooke, Robert
Gower, Raymond


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Corfield, F. V.
Gresham Cooke, R.


Biffen, John
Currie, G. B. H.
Grieve, Percy


Biggs-Davison, John
Dalkeith, Earl of
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Dance, James
Gurden, Harold


Black, Sir Cyril
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Blaker, Peter
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Body, Richard
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Eden, Sir John
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tlc-upon-Tyne, N.)
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Errington, Sir Eric
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter
Eyre, Reginald
Hawkins, Paul


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Farr, John
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Fortescue, Tim
Heseltine, Michael


Bryan, Paul
Gibson-Watt, David
Hiley, Joseph







Hill, J. E. B.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Sharpies, Richard


Hohson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Hogg, Rt. Hn. Qu ntin
Murton, Oscar
Sinclair, Sir George


Hordern, Peter
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Smith, John


Hunt, John
Neave, Airey
Stodart, Anthony


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Nott, John
Summers, Sir Spencer


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Onslow, Cranley
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Kimball, Marcus
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Peel, John
Teeling, Sir William


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Percival, Ian
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Peyton, John
Tilney, John


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


MacArthur, Ian
Pink, R. Bonner
Vickers, Dame Joan


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Pounder, Rafton
Ward, Dame Irene


Maude, Angus
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Webster, David


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Prior, J. M. L.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Pym, Fancis
Wright, Esmond


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Wylle, N. R.


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Younger, Hn. George


Monro, Hector
Russell, Sir Ronald



Montgomery, Fergus
St. John-Stevas, Norman
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


More, Jasper
Scott, Nicholas
Mr. Grant and Mr. Kitson.




Bill accordingly read a Second time.


Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]


Committee Tomorrow.

NATIONAL INSURANCE (EARNINGS LIMIT)

10.20 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Social Security (Mr. Norman Pentland): I beg to move
That the National Insurance (Earnings) Regulations 1967, a draft of which was laid before this House on 19th April, be approved.
The Regulations that I now introduce to the House mark the first stage of implementing the recommendations recently made by the National Insurance Advisory Committee in its Report on the earnings rule for retirement pensioners. Perhaps I should start by reminding the House of the details of the present earnings rule for retirement pensioners.
The present level of earnings limit is £5. For earnings between £5 and £6, sixpence is taken off the pension for each complete shilling of earnings in excess of £5. When the earnings exceed £6 an additional Is. is taken off the pension for each additional Is. of earnings in excess of £6. Therefore, some part of the normal pension of £4 is payable, unless the pensioner earns more than £9 10s. in a week.
In February last year my right hon. Friend the Minister asked the National Insurance Advisory Committee to look at this rule. It was asked to examine not just the level of the earnings limit, but other associated matters. My right hon. Friend wishes me to express her appreciation of the Committee's work in thoroughly examining the question, on which it had received representations from various organisations, and from individual members of the public.
The Committee's Report, published in January, made a considerable number of valuable recommendations. Its main recommendations were threefold.
The first was that the earnings limit should be raised from its present level of £5 to one of £6 10s. Secondly, it recommended that the range of earnings over which deductions are made from pensions at the rate of 6d. for each Is. of earnings should be extended so that it covered the band of earnings between £6 10s. and £8 10s. At present, it applies only on the band of earnings between £5 and £6.
Thirdly, the Committee dealt with the question whether, for the purposes of the earnings rule, earnings should be

looked at before Income Tax is paid under the P.A.Y.E. scheme, or after that tax has been paid. At present, we have regard to the earnings after tax but, as the Committee pointed out, this produces many anomalies. The Committee felt very strongly that these anomalies should cease, and it has recommended that in future we should have regard to the earnings before tax.
It also went out of its way to stress that this recommendation must go with the first two, because without it the figures that it has suggested would be higher than would be justified. This point about P.A.Y.E. tax is rather complicated, and perhaps I can best sum it up by pointing out that the earnings rule is concerned with the level of earnings, because that is the test of whether retirement has taken place.
On the other hand, Income Tax is related to income, and covers much more than earnings. If we make pension adjustments depend on Income Tax, and hence on income, we are getting away from the object of the earnings rule, which is simply to measure earnings. The effect is that some pensioners with additional income enjoy a higher earnings limit than others, which in the Government's view, is clearly unfair.
The Regulations give effect to all three of these recommendations. Regulation I prescribes that with Parliamentary approval, the Regulations will come into force on 5th June. Regulation 2 makes the amendments to the National Insurance Act to produce the new earnings limit of £6 10s., and to extend the 6d. reduction for each Is. of earnings to earnings between £6 10s. and £8 10s. Regulation 3 carries out the third main recommendation about P.A.Y.E. deductions, by suspending the operation of the Regulations under which at present these deductions are ignored in calculating the amount of a pensioner's earnings.
A preliminary draft of the Regulations has been submitted to the National Insurance Advisory Committee. Its report on them is contained in the House of Commons paper published on 19th April. Subject to a minor Amendment to Regulation 3 Which we have made in the


draft Regulations, the Committee recommended that the Regulations should be made in the form of the preliminary draft which had been submitted to it.
I am sure that hon. Members will join me in welcoming these very useful reforms of the earnings rule. The change in the earnings limit of £1 10s. is the largest ever made and, being a 30 per cent. increase, it is the biggest proportionate change made since the one we made in 1951. Apart from this, the changes will mean much greater fairness between one pensioner and another, ensuring that the improvements will be concentrated on the pensioner with the lower income.

10.21 p.m.

Mr. Paul Dean: I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for his explanation of these rather complicated Regulations. I echo from this side the thanks which he gave to the National Insurance Advisory Committee for the review which it undertook into the working of the earnings rule. We on this side welcome the Regulations and this improvement in the earnings limit, but there are one or two points of criticism which I shall have to make.
As the hon. Gentleman said, the present £5 limit came into operation in March, 1964, over three years ago. That is a long interval when one considers that the interval between the last two was less than 12 months—the increase in May, 1963, to £4, and the increase in January, 1964, to £5. The hon. Gentleman will recollect that on two occasions since the last increase we on this side of the House moved for increases in the National Insurance Bill in 1964 and in the National Insurance Bill in 1966. Therefore, we welcome these increases, although we feel that they are somewhat overdue.
There are two points which emphasise this. The first is the relationship between average earnings and the earnings limit. As the National Insurance Advisory Committee makes clear on page 15 of its full Report, the relationship between the earnings limit as a percentage of average earnings has declined quite considerably since the last increase in April, 1964. As Table I, on page 15, makes clear, the percentage relationship in April, 1964,

was 28·4, whereas by April, 1966, it had declined to 24–7. I have no doubt that now it is slightly smaller than that.
The second point is the need to encourage those who are able and willing to work part-time to do so. The Advisory Committee concedes that the earnings of pensioners and the work that they do tend to increase when the earnings limit is raised. This is a particularly important point. The Committee summarised this on page 13 of its Report when it said:
On the whole, the best judgment we can form is that there is a tendency for pensioners' earnings to increase as the earnings limit is raised, and, in so far as this is not merely a reflection of rising earnings levels, it would seem likely that increases in the limit do result in somewhat more work being done by some pensioners.
It is undoubtedly desirable that there should be some link between average earnings and the earnings limit and, equally, that the earnings limit should be fixed in such a way that it does not discourage those who are able and willing to work.
For those reasons, we support these increases, both the raising of the limit and the raising of the proportionate band, two of the Advisory Committee's main recommendations which are embodied in these Regulations. But there is one other important point to which the Advisory Committee draws attention. It deals with the important question of the capacity for work of older people and the availability of suitable work, and I should like to question whether, welcome as they are, these Regulations deal adequately with this matter.
The Advisory Committee points out that both the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. suggested an inquiry into the work patterns of older people subject to the earnings rule and their employment opportunities. The Committee decided against conducting an inquiry itself and gave a number of reasons for that, one of which was the time factor which would be involved. But it said that an inquiry might well be appropriate by another body or at another time. I realise that the Ministry of Labour is doing some work in this connection, but do we know enough about this subject?
We have what we regard as the discouragement of the S.E.T., which makes it more difficult for older people to get work. When one recognises both the


economic and, perhaps more important, the social value of older people being able to do part-time work, one recognises, also, the importance of trying to discover whether there are sufficient suitable opportunities for employment on a part-time basis for old people and, if there are not, what more can be done to provide them. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is now able to tell us a little more about whether the Government are taking the advice of the Committee and looking into this matter in more detail.
The Parliamentary Secretary explained the withdrawal of the P.A.Y.E. concession. Frankly, we regret this withdrawal and believe it to be a mistake. The effect will be to cancel out the easing of the earnings rule for some pensioners. Admittedly, there is at present different treatment, depending upon the source of income, of the pensioner concerned, but this appears to be a levelling down rather than the alternative possibility, which would have been a levelling up. My information is that some pensioners will be worse off as a result of the withdrawing of the P.A.Y.E. concession in spite of the increase in the earnings limit.
One example I have before me concerns a man who believes that under the new Regulations he will be earning 14s. 3d. a week less than under the present Regulations. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us how many pensioners he thinks will be worse off and, if such cases exist, as I believe they do, what steps he is taking to ensure that such pensioners do not suffer.
When we make changes in the National Insurance sphere there is invariably a provision to ensure that nobody will be worse off. I trust, therefore, that the Parliamentary Secretary will assure us that there be special provisions to prevent people from being worse off. The National Insurance Advisory Committee stated in paragraph 4 of its Report—House of Commons Paper No. 441—when dealing with the withdrawal of the P.A.Y.E. concession:
We are advised that this amendment has, in the form in which it was submitted to us, a wider effect in that it withdraws the disregard of any statutory deductions but we understand that this is a necessary preliminary to detailing … the disregards which are to be made in future.

This is a disturbing way of going about the implementation of the full Report. These Regulations deal with only one aspect of it and the House is being asked to approve them when they make no provision for statutory deductions. I understand that the intention is that further Regulations will be introduced shortly, to come into operation at the same time, dealing with the statutory deductions which will be allowed. However, tonight we are being asked to approve Regulations which make no provision for statutory deductions.
Although I have no reason to doubt the Minister's word when he says that this matter will be dealt with later, it is unsatisfactory to ask the House to pass one part of the package when it makes no provision for statutory deductions, merely on his word that the next part will deal with that aspect.
What would happen were the Prime Minister to dissolve Parliament next week? [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite may laugh, though no doubt, in the present malaise and unpopularity of the Government, it is highly unlikely that the Prime Minister would have an election now. But if he were to do so, we would find ourselves in the position of pensioners who work part-time being worse off because there is no provision for statutory deductions.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with this criticism. Apart from that, my hon. Friends have a general welcome for the Regulations, which will enable pensioners working part-time to earn a little more.

10.39 p.m.

Mr. David Winnick: I welcome this general relaxation in the earnings rule, which will be equally welcomed by many retired people. For some time the view has been expressed, in my view rightly, that the existing Regulations are too strict and harsh. I have no doubt that many pensioners have expressed this view in letters to the Ministry, just as they have been writing to hon. Members for some time complaining about the present restriction.
I hope that I am not being a heretic in saying so, but I look forward to the time when we can consider some further relaxation and even the possibility of abolishing the earnings rule altogether.


When it first came into being, it was felt that it was one way of protecting full employment and, some years ago, perhaps, it was justified. But we are living in different times now, and the time may come when it will be possible to do away with the earnings rule.
There are a number of people who are forced to retire at 65 when they still have all their mental faculties. After a few months of retirement, they become bored and are quite willing to take up part-time employment. They do it not only for the money, though doubtless it is useful for anyone living on a limited income, but because they want something to do. It may be that, when they were working, they looked forward to retirement and saw it as an opportunity to rest alter years of hard work. Having been retired for a few months, they find a need to occupy their time. That is why many people take up part-time work when they have retired, and feel resentful when their pensions are reduced once they earn more than £5.
Even during the present Session, there have been Questions and debates on the subject. Therefore, I welcome the general relaxation which has been announced. I am sure that it will be widely welcomed by pensioners who are doing part-time jobs. Having taken this step, I hope that the Government will at some future date consider what further action they can take to relax and, eventually, abolish this rule.

10.42 p.m.

Mr. John Pardoe: I am not sure that one can join in the chorus of welcome for these proposals with a completely clear conscience if, as the hon. Member for Croydon South (Mr. Winnick) said, one believes that the proper policy would be to abolish the earnings rule in its entirety. The effect of the proposals on a Left-wing conscience might be to sooth away the feeling that there is further to go. I believe that there is a long way to go.
The hon. Gentleman said that he hoped there would come a time when the earnings rule could be abolished entirely. I hope that it will, but I fear that we may have to wait for a Liberal Government for it to come about, because we are the only party which has campaigned against the rule.
The hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) wondered what the situation would be if the Prime Minister were to get out and go to the country now. No doubt he has been reading the results from Greenock, where there has been a 28½ per cent. swing to the Liberals in the last 24 hours. We are alone in our campaign against the earnings rule in its entirety, and, though I welcome these proposals as a rather moderate reform in the right direction, I feel that we need to go very much further.
By making this change, the Government have accepted the arguments which I have always advanced in favour of changing the whole policy and getting rid of the earnings rule completely. By making the change, the Government accept that the rule is a disincentive to work, and we want to do everything that we can to persuade those who are willing and able to work to do so, even if it is only on a part-time basis.
There is the problem, too, that elderly people need a period of transition from full-time work to full-time retirement. Unfortunately, the working of the earnings rule tends to mitigate against this and to discourage people from carrying on working, even in part-time employment, after retirement.
One comes to the point of asking why we do not go even further? The hon. Gentleman will no doubt say that I am being dishonest in advocating a greater relaxation of the earnings rule because I cannot find the money to pay for it. The money would have to come. A considerable sum of money would be needed, and I am sure that it is lack of money—I hope it is not lack of conscience—which stops the Government from going the whole way with me tonight.
One can talk about growth. One can say that the methods of payment should be changed, but the real reason why the Government cannot go further tonight is that their policy is working towards a greater gap between private wealth and public squalor than was the case under Conservative Governments. I do not think that one can condemn a Labour Government in harsher words than that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order. We cannot embark on a debate on that subject on these Regulations.

Mr. Pardoe: I take your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I realise that it might be difficult to discuss that without getting out of order. I shall, therefore, try to keep in order, and keep my remarks short.
We welcome these moderate proposals, but we prefer the Government to go the whole way. We believe that the principle of the pensions rule in future should be that the Government should pay a basic pension as of right to every pensioner, irrespective of earnings, or, indeed, of contributions.

Mr. Michael English: I think I am right in saying that it would cost about £110 million to do that. Will the hon. Gentleman explain how the Liberal Party proposes to pay for this?

Mr. Pardoe: I would answer that, but Mr. Deputy Speaker has ruled that I would be out of order if I answered it in great detail.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Member would be out of order if he attempted to answer that question.

10.47 p.m.

Mr. Pentland: I am glad that a general welcome has been given to these recommendations, even though the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) accepted them with reluctance.
Perhaps I might deal first with the questions put to me by the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean). He asked me about the inquiry into the availability for work. It is true that the recommendation to which he referred was made by the Committee, and it looked forward to other occasions on which adjustments to the earnings rule might be in prospect. This would not be the best time to undertake such an inquiry, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that the point has been taken.
The hon. Gentleman then asked about P.A.Y.E. deductions. I appreciate what he said about this, but 1 hope he will agree with me that the Advisory Committee insisted most strongly that these caused serious anomalies in the present earnings rule system and that these anomalies should cease. Indeed, the Committee said that
… on grounds of equity, if for no other reason, this anomaly should cease …

Having said that—and here I come to the other point made by the hon. Gentleman—the Committee recognised that pensioners who have enjoyed the tax concession and who would be worse off—and I assure the hon. Gentleman that there are relatively few of them—should not suffer undue hardship, and that something should be done to avoid this. The Committee said:
What we have in mind is that, if the tax concession were withdrawn, as we think it should be, the earnings limit could be relaxed by rather more than would otherwise be justified, and that the change … the change we have in mind in the proportionate band could also be such as to take some account of the withdrawal.
So it was conscious of the hardship which could be involved in this.
The Advisory Committee went out of its way to stress that these three recommendations must go together; that they must go hand in hand, because without acceptance of the third one the figures suggested in the first two recommendations would then be too high. I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept that.

Mr. Dean: I take the point the hon. Gentleman is making, but would he agree that even with these three recommendations taken together there will still be some pensioners who will be worse off than they are at present? If he accepts that this is the case, is he satisfied that that position should remain?

Mr. Pentland: Yes, I am accepting, and the Government accept, exactly what the Advisory Committee recommended in this instance—accepting, of course, that there will be a very small number who could be worse off in that their pensions would now be reduced more, because, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, in the past they have had a tax concession; in other words, they have had an unfair advantage in the earnings limit over other pensioners. Now we are levelling up, more or less; and indeed, the emphasis now is on fairness to the lower-income pensioners.
On the other point the hon. Gentleman made, about the other recommendations of the Committee, I can tell him that the Government accept the recommendations in full. All the other recommendations of this Committee have been accepted in full by the Government, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are proposing to bring them into operation


on the same date as that from which these Regulations operate, and that is 5th June.
The only other point I want to make is in reply to the hon. Member for Cornwall, North. It is quite true that members of the Liberal Party have on more than one occasion raised the point about complete abolition of the earnings rule. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) was quite right: if there were complete abolition of the earnings rule tomorrow, or on 5th June, we should have to find £110 million a year. We on this side of the House believe, and I am sure the House will agree, that in the present situation, if we had £110 million at our command, we could find other priorities on which we could spend that amount of money—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot pursue that point on this Motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the National Insurance (Earnings) Regulations, 1967, a draft of which was laid before this House on 19th April, be approved.

ANTI-DUMPING DUTY (STEARINE)

10.53 p.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. George Darling): I beg to move,
That the Anti-Dumping Duty Order, 1967, (S.I., 1967, No. 553), dated 6th April, 1967, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13 th April, be approved.
This Order hase been made under the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act, 1957. It imposes anti-dumping duties of £15 per ton on stearine originating in Australia and of £9 7s. a ton on stearine originating in Belgium. Hon. Members will know that stearine is a waxlike mixture of fatty acids made mainly from tallow and is used in the compounding of rubber and in toilet preparations, polishes, and lubricating oils and greases. The House will also know that before duties can be imposed under this Act the Board of Trade must be satisfied not only that dumping is taking place but also that this is causing or threatening material injury to a British industry and that anti-dumping action would be in the national interest.
In this case the application was made by the Association of Fatty Acid Distillers whose members manufacture all the stearine produced in Great Britain. According to the normal procedure a public announcement was made on 18th November last year inviting representations from interested parties. After the investigation and careful consideration of the evidence and representations received, my right hon. Friend was satisfied that imports of stearine originating in Australia and Belgium were dumped. He was also satisfied that these dumped imports had caused material injury to the British industry and threatened further injury, and that the imposition of anti-dumping duties would be in the national interest.
Hon. Members will probably appreciate that I cannot give detailed reasons for our findings, because these were based on commercial and financial information given to the Board of Trade in the strictest confidence, but I can assure the House that we have made very full investigations, including the costs and returns of the British producers, and we are satisfied that the dumped imports had severely depressed British prices, with the result that the returns obtained by the British producers have been drastically reduced.
The duties came into force on 14th April this year and in announcing the decision the Board of Trade gave the usual warning that if imports of stearine originating in other countries were found to be dumped they, too, would be liable to this anti-dumping action.
I hope that the House will approve the Order.

10.57 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I am grateful to the Minister of State for the explanation he has given of this Order. Anti-dumping Orders are not so frequent that it could be regarded as a work of supererogation if I were to say, in two or three sentences, that my hon. Friends and I support the need for anti-dumping protection. Where manufacturers can sell their products in different markets they can cut their prices in one without necessarily affecting the price levels in another. If we were in a Common Market this would not apply; that is one of the advantages of a Common Market.
This temptation is enormously enhanced in capital-intensive industries, where the difference between marginal costs and full absorption costs is great and it may still be profitable to keep plant operating at full capacity while selling at a price that barely covers the marginal cost of manufacture. If a firm is suffering at the same time from over-capacity the temptation to try to cover some part of the overheads by selling at dumped prices is very strong. No industry has suffered more than the chemical industry in this respect.
Tonight we are considering a branch of the chemical industry—oleo-chemicals, and the right hon. Gentleman has given the House a description of stearine. I armed myself with particulars of the chemical composition of stearine, but I will spare the House the torture of having to listen to them.
However, although we accept in general the need for anti-dumping protection we should always consider an anti-dumping order with a critical eye. We have to consider the effect it will have on the users of the material in question. The right hon. Gentleman has indicated the wide variety of industries to which stearine goes. Stearine is the solid component of the distillation of fats. It is important to realise that this goes to a wide variety of consumer industries, making products which reach retail shops in common forms. Stearine goes into pharmaceuticals, confectionery, shaving soaps and creams, textile products, polishes, linoleum, and a wide variety of other articles. Therefore, if the Order puts up the price, we must be satisfied that the consequent effect is justified.
Competition from imports can always be regarded as a check on price rings and inefficiency. For some years, the members of the Association of Fatty Acid Distillers were operating a price ring which was effectively broken by imports, particularly from Belgium and Australia. The House would welcome an assurance that the duty will not restore the original position. Of course, the Restrictive Trade Practices Act makes any formal price ring registerable and something which has to be justified, but that can be circumvented. We want to be satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman has adequate

undertakings from the domestic industry that competition will continue.6
Another reasonable complaint which users of stearine might have is that the price paid by their competitors overseas, particularly on the Continent are lower than the prices which the duty will produce in this country. How much higher will United Kingdom prices be, and to what extent will this be a disadvantage to the users? Why should they be higher? Does the British industry operate in too small units or have difficulty getting raw materials at competitive prices? Why, in a modern technological industry, containing some of the foremost chemical firms, can they make stearine economically only at a higher price than some of their competitors?
Another worry of consumers is the question of competing in export markets. It is common in many spheres in the chemical industry for supplies of intermediates to be given at special prices for what are called indirect exports. Stearine has never had this treatment, and if the prices go up again, those making the finished products believe that they will again be at a disadvantage. If they get their anti-dumping protection, will the manufacturers offer special prices for indirect exports?
The 1957 Act gives the Board of Trade power to allow drawback for antidumping duty. Does an Order exist or is it intended to pass one allowing drawback in this case on stearine imports paying the duty in the case of products which have been exported? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that United Kingdom capacity will meet the demand? It has been suggested that imports have been necessary because United Kingdom manufacturers have not installed enough capacity, and the House would welcome an assurance on that.
What is the reason for the figures for anti-dumping in the Schedule—£15 per ton on stearine from Australia and £9 7s. for that from Belgium? The difference between export and domestic prices, which is the main justification for the Order, is about £30 a ton in Belgium. The domestic price ranges between £102 and £139 and the export price between £74 and £109. In Australia, the difference is between £50 and £53. Clearly some of this is made up by the normal import duties, but the margin is very


much greater than £5 13s., which is the difference between the duties charged on Australia stearine and Belgian stearine respectively by the Order. Is the duty being charged enough in the case of Australian stearine, bearing in mind that there was a £50 difference between their domestic and their export prices?
Could the Minister of State confirm that the Order is legal. The 1957 Act does not appear to envisage that an Order under the Act could cover material from two different sources or two different materials under the same Order. Section 2 says:
The power which the Board of Trade may exercise under this Act is a power by order to impose on goods of a description specified in the order a duty of customs chargeable on the import of the goods …
Here we have goods of two different descriptions. This seems to require an assurance from the Minister of State that the matter has been looked into to see if the Order is perfectly valid.
The Minister has satisfied me that on grounds of material injury the Order appears prima facie to be justified, but it would be a pity if someone were able to establish that the Order was ultra vires and invalid.

11.7 p.m.

Mr. Darling: Dealing with the last question first, the Order, of course, has gone through the usual procedure of being examined very carefully indeed by the legal experts whose job it is to make sure that any Orders any Government produce are well within the terms of the Act from which they spring. I do not think that I need to ask whether in this case the process of examination has been properly carried out. I am quite sure that no Order could possibly come forward through the machine of examination in this kind of case and any mistake be made. No doubt the question asked by the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) will be passed on to the legal pundits concerned and they might have another look at it. I am absolutely sure that the wording of the Act, which says "goods of a description "would apply to cases of some other description coming from more than one source. If there is evidence of further dumping from other countries this Order will be extended to cover those countries.
The hon. Member asked whether there was sufficient capacity in the United King-

dom to supply all the needs of users of stearine if as a result of the anti-dumping duty we are concerned with imports are reduced. I am assured that the British industry's capacity is more than enough to supply the entire British market without any imports at all.
On the question of the level of duties, the situation which we had to face was that the stearine we are applying the duty to which came from Australia came from different sources. In one case the degree of dumping amounted to £15 a ton and in the other to £44 a ton. After consultation with the trade and the Australian authorities, who of course admitted the dumping, we decided that the best figure to apply was not the higher but the lower one. There were good technical reasons for that. The examination we made of the Belgian situation was that the dumping margin varied and £9 7s. 3d. was the high figure. But here again, because of the amount which was coming from different sources, it was felt that the figure which we put in the Order was the right one to apply in the case of dumped imports from Belgium.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether competition would continue in this industry and whether, with this further protection against imports, we could be certain that the manufacturers in this country would not get together and have a price ring, as had apparently, been done, according to the hon. Gentleman, in the past. Not only would the Restrictive Trade Practices Act take care of that, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman, from what I have seen of the discussions which have gone on with the firms concerned, that any suggestion of their failing to compete with one another or that they might form a price ring is completely out of court.
The hon. Gentleman asked also whether home prices were higher than the manufacturing prices—apart from dumping—of our main overseas competitors. I understand that our home producers can compete abroad, but this is a question into which I should have to go a little more carefully. I do not think that there is any question here of inefficiency or incompetence on the part of the British manufacturers, but whether there are natural conditions which for one reason or another give an advantage to some manufacturers overseas is a


question I should have to look into. There is no great difficulty here in assuring ourselves that the home producers will be somewhere near, if not actually on, the same level of prices as their overseas competitors.
Next, the hon. Gentleman asked what would be the effect on the customers. I am told that, although the anti-dumping duties here provided will lead to some increase in price by British manufacturers—that is the purpose of it, to get rid of the depression of their industry caused by the dumped prices—the amount of raw material from this industry which goes into the manufactured products of the customers is such that we need not expect any marked difference in the prices of the finished products. As the hon. Gentleman knows, taking the prices of all the raw materials which go into the range of finished products we have been considering, the trend is downwards, and this trend will, we think, more than balance the increase in prices which will come from this one material, stearine.
I should like to have notice of his question about a draw-back Order. I do not think that there is a draw-back Order in operation, and I do not think that there is any arrangement for prices to be indicated for indirect exports. But I shall have to look into the point and let the hon. Gentleman know.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Anti-Dumping Duty Order 1967 (S.I., 1967, No. 553), dated 6th April, 1967, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th April, be approved.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (WEST MIDLANDS)

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That the West Midlands (Amendment) Order 1967, dated 6th April, 1967. a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th April, be approved.—[Mr. MacColl.]

11.14 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: This Order varies the West Midlands Order of 1965, which made a substantial local government reform in the area of Birmingham, Wolverhampton and round about. The 1965 Order came into operation about 16 months ago, so the present Order is to vary one which has been in effect for only that time.
Article 25 of the West Midlands Order, 1965, extended Sunday opening of cinemas to certain areas there specified. I presume that before the Order there was not authority for cinemas to open in those areas on a Sunday, but apparently in drafting Article 25 of the 1965 Order a comparatively small area which should have been mentioned was not. The error was obviously one of omission. The 1965 Order changed the boundary between the Boroughs of Halesowen and Oldbury; part of Oldbury was transferred to Halesowen. Sunday opening of cinemas was at that time allowed in Oldbury but not in Halesowen, and in that small area transferred from Oldbury to Halesowen I understand that there was a cinema, or cinemas. That cinema—or those cinemas—had opened on Sundays when in Oldbury but when it found itself in Halesowen it could not. Perhaps it is better not to ask whether the cinema has opened in the intervening 16 months.
There is no mention in the Order of giving an indemnity to the proprietors, nor could there be, for an Act of Parliament would be needed. I shall therefore restrict my remarks to what is in the Order, which merely seeks to put right this error in the 1965 Order. If this were a Bill it would be a hybrid Bill; it affects private interests, and the petitioners against it—if any—could be heard in the Standing Committee which would deal with the Bill. We have no such procedure in the House relating to Orders which affect private interests.


although there is such a procedure in another place. Because we have no such procedure I think that it is important that we should make sure that any preparatory steps necessary before an Order comes before the House have been fully carried out, for they give some protection to any private interest which may be affected.
Section 41 of the Local Government Act, 1958—the parent Statute of the Order—the Section under which the Minister has exercised his powers in making the Order, requires a considerable number of preparatory steps to be taken before an Order of this sort comes before the House. I would have expected a preamble in the Order reciting that they had been carried out.
The Section states:
(1) Any order of the Minister made on a review under this Part of this Act may be varied or revoked by order of the Minister made in accordance with the following provisions of this section.
The Order with which we are concerned is an Order varying a previous Order, and the rest of the Section applies to it. The Section continues:
(2) The Minister shall prepare a draft of the varying or revoking order, shall send copies of the draft to such local or public authorities as appear to him to be concerned, and shall give public notice, in such manner as appears to him sufficient for informing persons likely to be concerned, that the draft has been prepared,…
I shall not continue reading the whole Section, but it provides for public inquiry if any objections are received, and the Minister must give full consideration to those objections.
Have any such objections been received, and, if so, was any inquiry carried out? In short, were the steps required by Section 41 before bringing the Order before the House duly carried out? If they were not, then this Order is ultra vires. If these steps have been carried out, this Order is something more than an order varying a previous local government order. It is also an order under Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, and there again there are quite a number of preparatory steps to be taken to inform people in the district that such an order is being made. Section 1(5) of the Act, which permits Sunday opening of cinemas, says:

This section shall … extend … to any borough or country district to which it can be extended by an order laid before Parliament in accordance with the provisions of the Schedule to this Act, and approved by a resolution passed by each House of Parliament".
The Schedule to the Act sets out a procedure for advertising the intention to make an order, the advertising of the drait order and, if any objections are received, for a meeting—a town poll meeting—to be held.
Have these provisions been carried out or can the hon. Gentleman assure us that there is some other statutory provision which makes it unnecessary for the Minister to carry them out? I ask him to give an assurance that the preparatory steps required under Section 41 of the Local Government Act, 1958, have been duly observed and carried out fully, that the public has been informed and has had an opportunity to object to the Order in public meeting, that the provisions of the Sunday Entertainment Act, 1932, have also been carried out and that the necessary meetings have been called and all objections, if any, duly given a chance to be heard in the form required by these Statutes.

11.22 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): As the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) observed, this might have been a hybrid Bill had it been a Bill. He referred to the procedure in another place. I will not trespass into what happened there but I believe that this Order was treated there under the hybrid procedure applied in that House to special orders, that there were no objections to it and that it went through with rather less discussion than we are having. So I do not think we need blame ourselves for not having treated this matter seriously enough.
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has misled the House a little. I am not sure if I heard him aright, but I think he implied that Article 25 of the original Order applied the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to places which did not already have Sunday opening of cinemas. Article 25 applied to certain places which are now parts of the new boroughs. They are all places which already had it.
From our point of view the difficulty would not have arisen if Halesowen had had Sunday opening and therefore been covered by Article 25. The trouble arose from the fact that Halesowen did not have it and does not have it and that this little piece of Oldbury, for all I know, regarding the transfer into Halesowen with modified rapture at best, and finding that it could not have its cinema open on Sunday, felt even more disgruntled. But this is speculation.
Certainly there was pressure, and requests from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) on behalf of some of her constituents, to do something about this. That is why the Government are doing something. It is correct to say that the draft Order was put on deposit with the Halesowen Council on 4th February, and advertised in the local papers. There is a requirement that the Minister has to consider representations and hold an inquiry into objections.
No objections were received, although the Lord's Day Observance Society, not surprisingly, said that it saw no particular reason why the cinema should be opened. That was a representation and was not, in the terms of the Act, an objection. It was, therefore, decided, on the basis of that, with the full support of the local council, to amend the Order.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question of the application of the Sunday Entertainments Act. When in 1952, Oldbury had the very great privilege of having its cinema open on Sundays, there was a poll, and by a very substantial majority it retained that freedom. No change has taken place, and this particular piece of territory, including this cinema, had always had its Sunday cinema since that time.
All that is being done is to restore the previous arrangements. There are powers under the Local Government Act to do that in a Local Government Act Order. We are not, in any way, extending the powers of Article 25; we are merely including in it that which was omitted by error, and we are not therefore in any way altering the existing position. I am advised, and it is my view, that everything has been done within the provisions of the Local Government Act to make this a valid Order.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the West Midlands (Amendment) Order 1967, dated 6th April, 1967, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th April, be approved.

MOBILE PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICE (NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

11.27 p.m.

Mr. R. W. Elliott (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North): I welcome very much this opportunity to raise the subject of the great need to continue in being the mobile ancillary physiotherapist service in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and in the adjacent area to it, which is covered by the South-East Northumberland Hospital Management Committee. It was on the basis of an article published in the Medical News for November, 1963, which illustrated the possible value of a mobile physiotherapy service, that the senior medical officer in geriatrics in the Health and Social Services Department at Newcastle-upon-Tyne asked the Northumberland Red Cross Society if it would be prepared to establish such a service in the city.
It seemed that under Section 28 of the National Health Act, the local authority was not empowered to provide such a service. An appeal was made to Newcastle University Rag Committee, which eventually raised £2,035. The money having been raised, the scheme was started on New Year's Day, 1965, and an extension of it was started in what we know in the region as the coastal area in October, 1965.
I should like to say a number of things about this service. First, it has been carefully supervised. Very full records have been carefully kept. It has been a highly successful venture. The service has been effective and greatly valued by patients and medical practitioners. Thirdly, and most important, the money which has been used to operate the service is running out, and unless financial backing is given very quickly indeed by the regional hospital board, this valuable service will cease to exist.
This grave situation led the Red Cross Domiciliary Committee to open negotiations with the Ministry of Health with a view to the service becoming a proper charge upon the hospital authorities. Serious consideration was given to this proposal by the Department. I think this is generally appreciated. Indeed, no better illustration of the serious consideration given to the proposal can be forthcoming than the fact that the letter to the Ministry, sent on 25th August, was not answered till 3rd November. Despite this lengthy consideration, the answer when it came was that the resources of the Health Service in Newcastle, as in other parts of the country, should be devoted to providing a hospital physiotherapy service. This reply, I should like to impress upon the Parliamentary Secretary, has been received in Newcastle-upon-Tyne and in the region with considerable dismay.

Dame Irene Ward: Hear, hear.

Mr. Elliott: Because of this dismay, on 20th March I asked a Question, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), the unsatisfactory answers to which have led to this debate tonight. We were supported on that occasion from the other side of the House by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop), and I am very pleased to see that he, too, is in his place at this late hour.
I wish on this occasion to appeal strongly to the Parliamentary Secretary to look very carefully once again at the possibility of this service becoming an official one within the hospital service. I think that I am aware, as I think, are those involved in the scheme, of the fiancial problems involved. We realise that once a scheme like this is financed for Newcastle-upon-Tyne there will be demands for similar schemes elsewhere. We know that the high cost of such schemes must be something that the Minister must bear very firmly in mind. But I should like to say a little about costs in a moment.
The suggestion generally made by the Minister and by the Department that adequate hospital physiotherapy services are the real answer, is accepted by those involved in the scheme. But at the moment the hard truth is that in Newcastle and

the region, if this well organised and greately appreciated mobile service ceases to exist there are nothing like enough hospital facilities to replace it. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to consider this decision which we ask him to reverse in the light of the availability of local facilities.
I know that stroke patients are usually referred either to a geriatric unit or to the department of physical medicine. Comparatively few are admitted to hospital beds for active and intensive treatment. Nevertheless, a considerable number are. According to statistics which I have been given relating to the Newcastle region, there is only one geriatric bed per 1,000 head of population. This is the least ratio of any area in the country.
I should like to call in aid to this point an extract from a letter dated as recently as 20th April, 1967, which was sent to the Chairman of the Red Cross Mobile Physiotherapy Committee by the consultant geriatric physician at Preston Hospital in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth. It reads:
As you will know. this area has the least allocation of geriatric beds in the whole country. Any claim that can alleviate the pressure of beds is therefore to be encouraged. The domiciliary rehabilitation scheme worked very well. The family doctor found it invaluable. It did not use one physiotherapist who could work in hospital and it ensured the early recovery of many patients.
In addition, the physiotherapy department at the Royal Victoria Infirmary in Newcastle has a six weeks waiting list. This is a very long waiting list indeed for outpatient treatment. In our general hospital in the city there is only one establishment of 13 physiotherapists to cover 1,050 beds, and the position outside Newcastle is worse.
It is highly improbable that the regional board can improve this position until new hospitals are built. There is going to be a gap of quite a number of years in the adequacy of geriatric provision generally. This gap, in the opinion of many who know this scheme and many who are involved in it, can be substantially filled in the immediate future by a continuance of the domiciliary service.
I should like to emphasise a few advantages which the pilot scheme has very clearly illustrated. First, the result of


treatment given so far by the service statistically suggests that 58 hospital weeks have been saved. To return to the point I made earlier about our realisation that the establishment or approval would lead to others at high cost, this saving of 58 hospital weeks has been estimated to save £1,740 over a period of nine months.
Secondly, it is distinctly proven—and we have evidence over and over again to suggest—that the physiotherapist actually visiting the home of the patient, as against the patient undergoing the physical strain of out-patient treatment, has been very greatly appreciated. This mobile service, with the physiotherapist actually visiting the home, must itself have saved money by lessening the transport requirement.
Thirdly, physiotherapists working this service are, in the main, young married mothers who are able to give part-time service only. In some of the correspondence, copies of which I have seen, between the chairman of the service and the Ministry of Health, it has been suggested that this part-time service would militate against the extension of hospital services by taking up people who might otherwise work in the hospitals. This, I am sure, is not so.
Most of these people who are working this service, if not all, cannot give full-time service in hospitals. Indeed I am given to understand that these young married physiotherapists welcome this opportunity to give part-time service to make continued use of their training—training which would otherwise be lost at the present time, at least to the National Health Service. I have been told by some of them that they see this part-time service as a continuation of their experience, and that when their children are old enough they anticipate going back into full-time hospital service.
I wish to conclude by paying tribute to those who have instigated and manned this highly valuable service. In particular I should like to commend for their energy and enthusiasm Miss Greenlees, Director of the Northumberland Branch of the Red Cross Society, and Dr. Hall, who has been such an able chairman of the services committee.
Once again, I should like to emphasise to the Parliamentary Secretary that the local domiciliary physiotherapy service run by the Red Cross in Newcastle-upon-Tyne forms a vital supplementary service which, as we see it, cannot be done without. Its continuance is vital.

11.40 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I support what has been said by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott) in his reasoned and very moderate expression of axiety about this situation. I feel some personal responsibility, because I suspect—I am not absolutely certain—that when I was at the Ministry of Health many years ago, this kind of proposal came up, although more generally over the country, and was rejected, as it had been by other Governments. I am not making any complaint about that.
Here we have a scheme which is run by private funds and which has shown the clear value of the scheme for using physiotherapists who would not be available to the hospital service, probably not even for part-time work, certainly not in most cases. I have such personal knowledge of and trust in the medical advice and the medical support which has been given to this scheme and the control which has been established over it that I would unhesitatingly say that it is a first-class and most valuable scheme and that, were it to collapse, many would be denied care and treatment early enough, which might be very damaging to them.
I appreciate the difficulties of introducing or in any way supporting a scheme in one part of the country when it would not necessarily be applied elsewhere, but one needs to be flexible enough to try to meet this kind of case and to be willing, because of the value of this specific scheme in this area, to say that it should be supported even though it might not be acceptable in other parts of the country.

11.42 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward: I want to add only a few words to what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott) and the hon.


Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop). I want to clear up one matter of tremendous importance. The other day I asked the Minister of Health whether the Chartered Society of Physiotherapists supported the scheme and, to my consternation, the right hon. Gentleman did not appear to know anything about it. For many years I have been a member of the Council of the Society and I want to put it on the record, so that it is there for certain, that the Society is fully in support of the scheme.
Matters of this kind must be seriously considered by the Minister of Health and it is surprising that he should not have consulted the Society, when he would have been able to get the full facts about the shortage of personnel and what is behind the scheme. It would have been more helpful, particularly in view of the effort which has been put into the scheme, if the Minister had been willing to receive a deputation led by those of us who are interested in the subject and who support those who have done the professional work within the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board. We could then have ensured that the Minister did not reach conclusions based on incorrect information.
I am grateful for this opportunity to add my words in support of those who think that the Minister should reverse his decision and take steps to ensure that this very good service in the North-East is not dispensed with because of lack of support from the regional hospital board, which, of course, depends on the Minister to give consent to it.

11.45 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Julian Snow): I have noted the remarks of the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) and I was pleased to listen to the studied moderation of my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) and the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott).
I accept, following the hon. Lady's intervention, that it is conceivable that there may have been some misunderstanding of my reply the other day about the Chartered Society of Physiotherapists. I said on that occasion that no representation had been made to us, and that

was the position. I assure her that there has been a great deal of consultation. Indeed, I would be surprised if there are any facts about this matter that are unknown to my Department.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North for raising this matter and I will begin by discussing some of the medical aspects which gave rise to the decision of my Department. Recent developments in medicine have had a marked effect on the practice of physiotherapy. Increasing knowledge of the nature of various disorders of the locotomor system has led to radiant heat and massage being replaced by more active forms of physiotherapy. I speak with personal experience about the exercises that are prescribed.
I wish to refer to the advice which the then Minister of Health, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), received from his Standing Medical Advisory Committee, a body of experts of the highest repute, more than five years ago. This advice was circulated to all hospital authorities in March, 1962 The report stated:
Many patients still ask for massage because it gives symptomatic comfort at the time of application and they assume it must be doing good; but in the long run it is kinder to teach them how to use modern aids to minimise their disabilities".
The Committee also commented that it was perhaps noteworthy that hospitals with fuller facilities for rehabilitation made less use of massage. The Committee found that, while there had been a marked reduction in the use of massage and electrotherapy, there had been a greater increase in the demand for other forms of physiotherapy, notably the modern type of active remedial exercises which are used in all stages of medical rehabilitation in a steadily increasing number of hospital departments and special centres.
All this remains true. What we must aim to do is to give patients the best chance of regaining their independence as quickly as possible. They possibly do not realise that attendance at hospital and receiving treatment with other patients in similar difficulties to their own in itself is also of therapeutic value.
Hospital authorities have been advised for many years that physiotherapy in the National Health Service should be provided only under consultant prescription


as part of the hospital and specialist services, and that responsibility should be accepted by hospital boards only for treatment prescribed by hospital specialists and carried out under their supervision.
Moreover, the considered advice of responsible and expert professional opinion is that if physiotherapy is necessary following a stroke, it should be provided daily and intensively. This applies whether the patient is recovering in hospital or at home under the care of his general practitioner. In this connection, it is important to bear in mind that it may not be essential for every patient who has suffered a stroke to be given physiotherapy treatment.
On the question of staff, my figures are somewhat at variance with those provided by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North. There is a further argument in favour of concentrating treatment in hospitals. Although the numbers of physiotherapists in post continue to increase and recruitment of students remains at a high level, there are nevertheless shortages in some areas. Steps are being taken to increase training facilities, but in the meantime it is important that the best use should be made of the staff available.
Often part-time staff are able to make a most valuable contribution and in 1965 the Department asked hospital authorities to review their staffing and recruitment policies and to make provision wherever possible for regular part-time service. Some 20 per cent. of all hospital physiotherapy is now carried out by part-time staff. Concentration in hospital departments is more economical of staff than a mobile service, which takes up the time of the staff in travelling. Our present policy points, therefore, to not encouraging this sort of domiciliary treatment.
In the light of the current concept of the use of physiotherapy and staffing difficulties, we consider that physiotherapy should continue to be provided, as it has been since the early days of the National Health Service, as a hospital service. Because there has been a shift of emphasis from massage and heat treatment to various types of exercises, including group exercises and the use of appliances, some of which are bulky, we feel that it is essential that, to obtain maxi-

mum benefit for the patient, physiotherapy should be carried out under medical supervision backed by the full facilities of a hospital physiotherapy department. Such facilities per se cannot be provided in mobile units, nor can treatment be as closely supervised by consultant staff. Further, since physiotherapists are in short supply, maximum returns can only be obtained by concentrating their efforts in hospitals.
Domiciliary physiotherapy is relatively expensive in resources and relatively ineffective. Furthermore, it is inconsistent with modem concepts of therapeutic practice and, in the National Health Service, is prescribed only in special circumstances and by a hospital specialist at a hospital or through a domiciliary consultation.
I turn now to the specific point about the position in Newcastle-upon-Tyne. The scheme for a mobile service was started in 1965. The local health authorities had previously advised the Northumberland Branch of the Red Cross that their powers were not wide enough to provide such a service under Section 28 of the National Health Service Act. The regional hospital board had held out no hope that it would be able to finance the scheme at a later date. I make that point because there appears to be some argument that the service had the full support of the board That is not so.
However, in the light of the experience gained and because financial resources were not available to enable these services to be maintained indefinitely, the branch wrote to the Ministry last August. Once again, I am sorry about the long delay in replying to that letter, but it was a matter for deep consultation and consideration. In support of its application, the British Red Cross Society submitted a paper setting out the results achieved, together with other information relating to the work of the service. This was given the most careful consideration against the background of the Ministry's policy on physiotherapy services, but none of the information that it contained provided sufficient grounds to justify asking the Board to assume financial responsibility for the continuance of this service, and the British Red Cross Society was so advised.
It appears that patients were treated twice weekly, and that, on average, treatment was spread over a period of seven


weeks. The Minister was advised that some, if not all, of the patients who benefited from this twice-weekly treatment at home would almost certainly have achieved the same result sooner if they had been treated in a hospital department, and might have needed fewer total attendances.
It is the responsibility of the hospital authorities in the Newcastle Region to ensure that adequate physiotherapy services, in common with other hospital and specialist services, are available in the region. If the service being run by the Society closes down, the hospital service itself would have to accept responsibility for the treatment of those patients for whom physiotherapy is prescribed, and this would be subject to consultant prescription and supervision. My right hon. Friend has accordingly asked the regional hospital board and the board of governors to review their present physiotherapy services, bearing this eventuality in mind, with a view to bringing them into conformity with the very expert advice which he has received and which I ask the House to accept as being the mainstay in my right hon. Friend's argument.
One further point which I should like to deal with is the argument that the mobile service does not drain away staff from the hospital service because the people concerned could not offer part-time service at a hospital. There is nothing to prevent a hospital authority employing part-time physiotherapists who are willing to work there, even for a few hours a week. Attention has been drawn to the need to assist women returning to the profession after a break, by the provision of informal refresher training, and by the support and guidance of experienced staff during their first weeks of service.
I understand from the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board that the hospital management committees in its area do in fact employ part-time physiotherapists. A mobile service is likely to impede, to some extent, the provision of a fully satisfactory hospital service in places where physiotherapists are scarce by attracting some into the mobile service who would otherwise be willing to work, even if only on a part-time basis, in hospitals.
I should not like hon. Members to go away feeling that voluntary effort is not

appreciated by my right hon. Friend. In reaching his decision he was very mindful of the voluntary effort which has gone into the launching of this scheme. The hon. Gentleman suggested that we ignore, or do not react favourably to, voluntary effort in these matters. Local encouragement given to the project has been very marked, and we appreciate it, but at the outset the regional hospital board did not give out any hope that it would be able to finance the scheme at a later date, and this fact has been acknowledged by the British Red Cross Society.
It may well be true that the difficulties of the hospital service in meeting demands for physiotherapy in Newcastle are greater than in some other regions, and that the Red Cross Service in this instance is well run and of special value in view of the local circumstances. On the other hand, it would be quite untenable for the Ministry to attempt to discriminate between this scheme and similar schemes in other parts of the country which have been set up at various times over the past 15 years.
The decision in regard to the Newcastle Unit did not, however take into account the success or failure of these other units. The decision was based simply and solely on the fact that we are bound to ensure that, as far as possible, the limited resources at our disposal are devoted to providing the kind of service which, in the considered opinion of the Minister and his professional advisers, is of most benefit to most patients over the country as a whole.
I should like to have elaborated somewhat on the question of the existing numbers of physiotherapists working part time and whole time in the Newcastle region, but I intend to send to all hon. Members who have participated in the debate the existing establishments. There are practically no vacancies at all, but if it can be demonstrated that their establishments should be increased in regard to either whole-time or part-time staff, we shall give the matter very sympathetic consideration, bearing in mind that the responsibility must be that of the National Health Service through the regional hospital board.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Twelve o'clock.